The Bombay High Court has held that a counterclaim need not relate to the same property or cause of action involved in the plaintiff's suit, while restoring a counterclaim excluded by the trial court. The Court observed that the discretion vested in the Court under Order VIII Rule 6-C CPC is required to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure the determination of all the questions in controversy.

Rule 6-C to although a plaintiff's request for exclusion under Order VIII Rule 6-C CPC must be given due regard, it is not binding on the Court, which must exercise its discretion judiciously.

Justice N. J. Jamadar was hearing a revision application challenging the trial court's order excluding a counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6-C of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction. The defendants filed a written statement and counterclaim seeking a declaration of ownership and an injunction concerning other parcels of land, alleging that the plaintiff was attempting to encroach upon their properties.

The plaintiff filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, seeking rejection of the counterclaim on the ground that it was unconnected with the suit properties. The Civil Judge excluded the counterclaim. Hence, the present application.

The Court noted that Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC permits a defendant to raise any right or claim arising from a cause of action against the plaintiff before the time for filing the defence expires. The limitation relates to when the cause of action arose, and not to the subject matter of the counterclaim.

“… the right to file a Counter-claim inexorably emanates from the cause of action that has accrued to the Defendant against the Plaintiff either before or after the institution of the Suit, but before the Defendant has delivered his defence… the limitation on the filing of the Counter-claim is with reference to the time at which the cause of action has arisen to the Defendant against the Plaintiff and not in regard to the subject matter of the counter claim,” the Court remarked.

The Court observed that any right or claim can be set up by the Defendant by way of a Counter-claim, and the text of Rule 6-A does not give any indication that the Counter-claim must flow from the claim made by the Plaintiff in the suit.

“… the counter-claim need not be confined to the cause of action of the same nature as the original cause of action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff,” the Court observed.

Referring to Jag Mohan Chawla v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang, the Court reiterated that a counterclaim may concern a different property and arise from an independent cause of action. It also distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Satyender v. Saroj, observing that the decision did not establish that a counterclaim must relate to the suit property or the plaintiff's cause of action.

“… the identity of the property is not necessary for the filing of the counter claim by the defendant. The learned Civil Judge, thus, applied an incorrect test to decide the question as to whether the counter-claim was required to be excluded,” the Court observed.

The Court accordingly allowed the revision application, set aside the trial court's order and restored the counterclaim. It requested the trial court to decide the suit and counterclaim expeditiously.

Case Title: M/s Ganesh Land Developers & Construction Private Limited v. Shradhha Realtors [Civil Revision Application No. 409 of 2026]