Introduction:
The case before the Supreme Court, titled Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabha Patel & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 912, involved an important procedural law issue regarding the scope of counter-claims under Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The appellant, Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth, filed the appeal against the order of the Gujarat High Court which had permitted respondent no. 2, Kiranbhai Shakrabha Patel, to file a counter-claim against a co-defendant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and categorically held that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC can only be filed against the plaintiff and not against co-defendants.
The dispute arose when the appellant instituted a suit seeking a declaration and injunction against her sister-in-law (defendant no.1) challenging an agreement to sell dated 21 October 2011, which had been executed in favor of respondent no.1 (defendant no.2). During the course of proceedings, defendant no.1 passed away, and by virtue of a consent order passed by the Gujarat High Court, the Nazir of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, was substituted in her place as her representative. Several years later, in July 2021, defendant no.2 sought to amend his written statement and file a counter-claim seeking specific performance of the 2011 agreement to sell against the Nazir, representing the estate of the deceased defendant no.1, and also prayed for partition of the suit property. The trial court dismissed this application in August 2021, citing delay, limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, and the fundamental principle that counter-claims cannot be made solely against co-defendants. However, in January 2023, the Gujarat High Court reversed this order by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and allowed the counter-claim, reasoning that since the Nazir was appointed in substitution of the deceased defendant no.1, the counter-claim became maintainable. Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments:
The arguments on behalf of the appellant centered around two main issues: first, that counter-claims under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC can only be filed against the plaintiff and not against co-defendants, a principle well-established in precedent; and second, that the counter-claim filed by defendant no.2 was barred by limitation and delay since it was introduced nearly nine years after the filing of the suit and two years after framing of issues. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2006) 12 SCC 734, which categorically held that counter-claims directed solely against co-defendants cannot be maintained. It was argued that the relief of specific performance against defendant no.1’s estate, represented by the Nazir, was not directed at the plaintiff and therefore impermissible. Furthermore, the appellant cited Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri (2020) 2 SCC 394, where the Court clarified that counter-claims must be filed before framing of issues and not afterward. Since issues in the present case were framed in February 2019, the belated counter-claim of July 2021 was impermissible. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s well-reasoned order and effectively allowed defendant no.2 to circumvent statutory limits, creating injustice and prejudice to the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent no.2 sought to justify the High Court’s order by stressing that the counter-claim became viable only after the Nazir’s appointment in substitution of the deceased defendant no.1. It was contended that since the Nazir was representing the estate of defendant no.1, the counter-claim for specific performance of the 2011 agreement was necessary to safeguard defendant no.2’s contractual rights. The respondent argued that denying the counter-claim would force defendant no.2 to file a separate suit for specific performance and partition, leading to multiplicity of proceedings and judicial inefficiency. It was further contended that procedural provisions should be interpreted liberally to ensure substantive justice and that the appointment of the Nazir changed the character of proceedings, making the counter-claim permissible. The respondent also argued that limitation should not be rigidly applied in this case, as the counter-claim arose out of the same transaction already in dispute. Therefore, to avoid conflicting decrees and multiplicity of litigation, the High Court had correctly allowed the counter-claim in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
Judgement:
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice PS Narasimha, disagreed with the High Court. The Court relied heavily on the precedent of Rohit Singh (supra), where it was categorically held that counter-claims cannot be filed against co-defendants. The Court observed that Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC was clear in its mandate, allowing counter-claims only against the plaintiff. In the present case, defendant no.2 sought relief of specific performance of the 2011 agreement by directing the Nazir, substituted in place of deceased defendant no.1, to execute the sale deed. Since this relief was not directed against the plaintiff but only against the co-defendant’s estate, it was impermissible as a counter-claim. The Court reiterated that such a position was no longer res integra after Rohit Singh.
The Court further highlighted the issue of delay and limitation. Referring to Ashok Kumar Kalra (supra), the Court emphasized that counter-claims must be filed before framing of issues. In this case, issues were framed in February 2019, yet the counter-claim was filed in July 2021—nine years after the suit was instituted and two years after framing of issues. This made the counter-claim not only belated but also in clear violation of settled procedural law. The Court held that the High Court erred in ignoring these well-established principles and wrongly allowed the counter-claim.
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had rightly dismissed defendant no.2’s application on the grounds of delay, limitation, and impermissibility of counter-claims against co-defendants. The High Court’s reversal was erroneous and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed, and the High Court’s order was set aside.
This ruling has significant implications in civil litigation as it reaffirms the settled principle that counter-claims can only be directed against the plaintiff and not against co-defendants, thereby maintaining the clarity and structure of civil procedure. It also underscores the importance of timely filing of counter-claims before framing of issues and prevents misuse of procedural mechanisms to prolong litigation or introduce stale claims. By reinforcing procedural discipline, the judgment seeks to balance the need for substantive justice with efficiency and fairnessin civil trials.