Published on: October 20, 2023 at 10:30 IST
Court: High Court of Delhi
Citation: Sukhpreet Singh V. Kamaljeet Kaur (2010)
Honourable High Court of Delhi has held that filing of Counter-Claim under Order VIII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with the Written Statement is not obligatory. It is held that it is the discretion of the Defendant to file either a Counter-Claim or to institute a Separate Suit.
14. The trial court was therefore justified in holding that the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking rejection of the plaint of the respondent under Order, 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, was not maintainable. Nor can the provision of Order, 2 Rule 2 CPC be treated as a bar for a plaintiff to institute a suit for the first time only for the reason that the said plaintiff happens to be an objector/defendant in an earlier suit instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner in respect of the same property. The limitation imposed under Rule 2 of Order, 2 is on a plaintiff, who loses his right to sue at a later stage in respect of any claim, which he omits to sue for in a suit.
The said provision has no application to a defendant in a suit who has chosen not to file a counter-claim under Rule 6-A of Order, 8 CPC. The said Rule only affords an opportunity to a defendant in a suit, to set up a counter-claim which can be treated by the court as a cross-suit and adjudicated in the same trial, instead of compelling the defendant to file a separate suit.
This however does not mean that a suit filed by such a defendant later in time is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. That the petitioner can seek trial of the present suit filed by the respondent along with his suit, is a different matter. The case of Renu Chhabra (supra) also has no bearing on the facts of the present case.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra