Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 18 August, 2022 at 18:25 IST
According to the Supreme Court, a counter claim may only be brought “against the claim of the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs in this case filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves as property owners. In his written declaration and counterclaim, the defendant asserted that in addition to the khasra and killa numbers listed in the plaint, he also owned two additional properties (not part of suit property). The trial court decided on the counterclaim and dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The plaintiff’s appeal was denied by the first appellate court. The second appeal was partially granted by Punjab and Haryana.
The defendants argued before the Supreme Court that the high court failed to create a legal question that was defensible under Section 100 of the CPC when it decided a second appeal. Regarding this claim, the court observed that the current dispute originated in Haryana, where Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act of 1918 would apply rather than Section 100 of the CPC.
The court pointed out that even though the formulation of a substantial question of law was not required, Section 41 of the Punjab courts Act stipulates that only decisions that are against the law, a custom or usage having legal effect, or in which the lower court has failed to rule on a crucial matter involving the law, a custom or usage having legal effect, are to be taken into consideration in a second appeal.
