Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held that filing of counter claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues.  

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the case of Abdul Sattar v. M. Khalid (2025). 

What was the Background of Abdul Sattar v. M. Khalid (2025) Case?   

• The petitioner had filed suit before the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangaluru, seeking a permanent mandatory injunction against the respondents. 
• The relief sought by the petitioner was to direct the defendants to remove an illegal compound wall constructed on the western and northern sides of the suit property, and in the event of non-compliance, to have the Court bailiff carry out the work at the defendants' cost. 
• The petitioner also sought a prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing his movement on the suit property. 
• The respondents filed their written statement on 26th August 2013, denying the allegations made in the plaint. 
• The plaintiff's evidence was concluded on 15th December 2015, and the matter was thereafter posted for the defendants’ evidence. 
• The defendants repeatedly sought adjournments, and eventually, the trial court posted the matter on 13th October 2019 for defendants’ evidence as a last chance. 
• On 20th October 2019, the defendants (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed IA No. 14 under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking to amend their written statement and raise a counterclaim for the first time. 
• The amendment and counterclaim were sought more than six years after the filing of the original written statement, and after the plaintiff’s evidence had already been concluded. 
• The trial court allowed the application for amendment and counterclaim through an order dated 03rd December 2019, which led to the present writ petition being filed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that Order 8 Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) permits a defendant to raise a counterclaim only up to the stage of filing the written statement or within the time allowed for delivering the defence. 
• The Court observed that the counterclaim must be based on a cause of action that accrued before the filing of the defence or before the expiry of the time allowed to file the defence. 
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri (2020), which held that though filing a counterclaim with the written statement is not mandatory, it cannot be permitted after framing of issues. 
• The Supreme Court in the above case laid down that a counterclaim may be allowed after filing of the written statement but only up to the stage of framing of issues, and in exceptional cases, till commencement of the plaintiff’s evidence. 
• The High Court found that in the present case, the counterclaim was filed more than six years after the written statement and after the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, which violates the procedural timeline under CPC and the principles laid down in Ashok Kumar Kalra. 
• The Court ruled that the trial court erred in exercising discretion by allowing such a belated counterclaim without considering relevant factors such as delay, prejudice to the plaintiff, and the stage of proceedings. 
• The Court emphasized that discretion to allow a counterclaim must be exercised judicially and allowing it at an advanced stage defeats the objective of speedy and efficient justice. 
• The Court concluded that the impugned order allowing the amendment and counterclaim was legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 
• The High Court clarified that rejection of the counterclaim would not bar the defendants from pursuing their claim through an independent legal proceeding. 
• Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court’s order dated 03rd December 2019, and rejected IA No. 14 seeking amendment of the written statement and inclusion of the counterclaim. 

What is a Counter Claim? 

About: 

• Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC provide for counter claim by the defendant-  
  • Sub-clause (1): Right to File Counter-claim 
    • A defendant can file a counter-claim against the plaintiff in the same suit. 
    • This counter-claim can be for any right or claim (e.g., damages). 
    • The cause of action must arise before the defendant has filed his defence or before the time allowed for filing defence has expired. 
    • Proviso: The counter-claim must be within the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction. 
  • Sub-clause (2): Effect of Counter-claim 
    • The counter-claim will have the same effect as a separate suit (cross-suit). 
    • The court can give a final judgment in the same case covering both the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counter-claim. 
  • Sub-clause (3): Plaintiff’s Right to Reply 
    • The plaintiff can file a written statement in reply to the counter-claim. 
    • The court will fix the time within which this reply must be filed. 
  • Sub-clause (4): Treatment of Counter-claim 
    • The counter-claim will be treated like a plaint (a new suit). 
    • It will follow the same rules as applicable to plaints under the CPC. 
• Order VIII Rule 6B states that Counter-claim to be stated- 
  • If a defendant wants to raise a counter-claim, he must clearly mention it as a counter-claim in his written statement. 
  • The defendant should specifically state that he is making a counter-claim and not just a defence. 
• Order VIII Rule 6C provides for exclusion of counter claim- 
  • If the plaintiff feels that the counter-claim should not be decided in the same suit, but in a separate suit, he can apply to the court. 
  • This must be done before issues are framed for the counter-claim. 
  • The court will then decide whether to allow or exclude the counter-claim from the current case. 
• Order VIII Rule 6D provides for effect of discontinuance of suit-  
  • If the plaintiff’s main suit is stayed, withdrawn, or dismissed, the defendant’s counter-claim can still continue. 
  • The counter-claim does not automatically end if the main suit ends. 
• Order VIII Rule 6E provides for default of plaintiff to reply to counter claim- 
  • If the plaintiff fails to respond to the defendant’s counter-claim, the court may: 
    • Give judgment against the plaintiff in respect of the counter-claim, or 
    • Pass any appropriate order regarding the counter-claim. 
• Order VIII Rule 6F provides for relief to defendant where counter claim succeeds 
  • If the counter-claim or set-off is successful, and there is a balance due to either party, the court can: 
    • Award judgment in favor of the party entitled to that balance amount. 
  • This allows fair adjustment between both parties’ claims. 

Relevant Case Laws: 

• Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri and Others (2020): 
  • The Supreme Court observed that as per the 2002 amendment, the defendant must file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons, extendable up to 90 days with court’s permission. 
  • Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC was introduced to avoid multiple proceedings and enable the court to decide all disputes in one suit. 
  • The law does not require a counterclaim to be filed strictly with the written statement, but courts have discretion to allow it later, depending on circumstances. 
  • The trial court must exercise discretion carefully, ensuring that: 
    • No prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. 
    • The trial is not unduly delayed. 
    • The object of the CPC amendment (efficient justice) is upheld. 
  • Courts should generally not permit counterclaims after issues are framed or the suit has substantially proceeded. 
  • The Court emphasized that speedy justice is important but must be balanced with the need to ensure effective justice and fair opportunity to all parties. 
  • Courts must assess various factors before allowing a delayed counterclaim, such as: 
    (i) Length of delay 
    (ii) Limitation period for the cause of action 
    (iii) Reasons for delay 
    (iv) Whether the defendant has asserted the right earlier 
    (v) Similarity between the main suit and counterclaim 
    (vi) Cost of filing a fresh suit 
    (vii) Possibility of abuse of process 
    (viii) Prejudice to the plaintiff 
    (ix) Overall facts and circumstances 
    (x) Most importantly, not after issues are framed 
  • The Court finally concluded that while Rule 6A gives flexibility, the right to file counterclaim is not absolute, and courts must ensure the counterclaim is timely and fair.