1997 JTR(SC) 1251
1997 AIR(SC) 3985 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 3922 ; 1998 1 AllCJ 379 ; 1997 4 CurCC(SC) 14 ; 1998 1 CurLJ 626 ; 1997 DNJ 372 ; 1998 1 ICC 377 ; 1998 ISJ(Banking) 121 ; 1997 8 JT 228 ; 1998 1 MLJ 34 ; 1998 1 PLJ 667 ; 1998 1 PLR(SC) 286 ; 1998 1 PLR(SC) 652 ; 1998 1 PLR(SC) 717 ; 1997 4 RCR(Civ) 222 ; 1998 89 RD 344 ; 1998 1 RLW(Raj) 4 ; 1997 6 Scale 260 ; 1997 8 SCC 174 ; 1997 Supp4 SCR 177 ; 1997 2 UJ 810 ; 1998 WBLR 13 ; 1997 KHC 1093 ; 1997 2 KLT(Online) 1128 ; 1997 8 Supreme 374
1997(8) Supreme 374
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Smt. Shanti Rani Das Dewanjee -Appellant
versus
Dinesh Chandra Day (dead) by Lrs. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2766 of 1987
Decided on 18-9-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Bhattacharya, Pradeep Kumar & S. K. Bandhupadhya, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Shankar Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, G. S. Chatterjee, Raja Chatterjee, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Counter claim can be filed even after filing written statement of cause of action had arisen before or after the filing of suit and such cause of action continued upto date of filing of written statement.
Act Referred :CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.8 R.6(a)
(A) The provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure govern the filing of counter-claims after the institution of a suit. The application filed by the defendant-respondents was held permissible as the cause of action for the counter-claim had continued up to the date of filing the written statement, demonstrating that the right to file such a claim is referable to the date of accrual of the cause of action, irrespective of the filing timeline of the main suit.
(B) Key legal principles include that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A is not barred merely because the written statement has been filed, provided the cause of action arose before or after the suit's institution and continued till the filing stage. The right to file such a claim depends on the accrual of the cause of action, and the court below does not warrant interference if limitation is not expressly raised.
Facts of the case:
A civil suit was instituted, and a subsequent application for a counter-claim was filed under Order VIII Rule 6A after the written statement. The timeline indicated that the suit began before the application, and the contention regarding limitation was not raised in the lower court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the application was not ex facie barred because the cause of action continued through the filing of the written statement. It also noted that the limitation question had not been raised below and thus was not decided, while urging swift disposal of the related suits.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the filing of a counter-claim application after the written statement was barred under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi:
The existence of a continuing cause of action that persisted until the filing of the written statement ensures that such an application is not barred, and the appeal fails as the impugned order did not suffer from any material illegality.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(A) The provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure govern the filing of counter-claims after the institution of a suit. The application filed by the defendant-respondents was held permissible as the cause of action for the counter-claim had continued up to the date of filing the written statement, demonstrating that the right to file such a claim is referable to the date of accrual of the cause of action, irrespective of the filing timeline of the main suit.
(B) Key legal principles include that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A is not barred merely because the written statement has been filed, provided the cause of action arose before or after the suit's institution and continued till the filing stage. The right to file such a claim depends on the accrual of the cause of action, and the court below does not warrant interference if limitation is not expressly raised.
Facts of the case:
A civil suit was instituted, and a subsequent application for a counter-claim was filed under Order VIII Rule 6A after the written statement. The timeline indicated that the suit began before the application, and the contention regarding limitation was not raised in the lower court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the application was not ex facie barred because the cause of action continued through the filing of the written statement. It also noted that the limitation question had not been raised below and thus was not decided, while urging swift disposal of the related suits.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the filing of a counter-claim application after the written statement was barred under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi:
The existence of a continuing cause of action that persisted until the filing of the written statement ensures that such an application is not barred, and the appeal fails as the impugned order did not suffer from any material illegality.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
ORDER
The short question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the application filed under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure on 22.6.85 by the defendant-respondents in Civil Case No. 248/82 pending in the Court of learned Munsiff at Serampore was barred by the provision of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order, it has been held that such application was not barred under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure because even after filing the written statement, such an application can be presented provided the cause of action for filing the counter claim had arisen before or after the institution of the said suit and such cause of action had continued till the filing of the written statement. It was sought to be contended by the appellant that once the written statement is filed, such application for counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A is ex facie barred.
2. In our view, the impugned decision does not warrant interference. Such question was specifically raised before this Court in Mahendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.1. It has been held by this Court that right to file a counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure is referable to the date of accrual of the cause of action. If the cause of action had arisen before or after the filing of the suit, and such cause of action continued upto the date of filing written statement or extended date of filing written statement, such counter claim can be filed even after filing the written statement. The said Civil Case No. 248/82, in which the application under Order VIII Rule 6A has been filed by the defendant respondents was instituted on 15.7.82 and the application under Order VIII Rule 6A was presented on 22.6.85. It cannot be held that the cause of action for the suit or counter claim was ex facie barred by limitation under the Limitation Act. It has been sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the instant case, the cause of action had arisen long before the institution of the said Civil Case No. 248/82 and, therefore, the suit and counter claim were barred under the Limitation Act. Such question was not raised before the Court below and, therefore, had not been gone into. It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to decide the same because the question of limitation regarding the suit if raised will be decided after ascertaining the date of accrual of the cause of action on the basis of relevant materials to be placed on record. We are therefore, not expressing any opinion on the said contention sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, for the first time before this Court. As the application under Order VIII Rule 6A is not ex facie barred the impugned order cannot be held to be incorrect on the grounds urged before the Court below. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.
3. It appears that C.S. No. 178/80 and Civil Case 248/82 have been directed to be heard analogously before the Court of the learned Munsiff. Since both the suits are pending for a long time, it is only desirable that both the suits should be disposed of as early as practicable preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order. We reasonably except that the Trial Court would be alive to the urgency of the disposal of the suits expeditiously and will take all necessary steps in that regard.
Appeal dismissed.
**********