2003 (5) TMI 526 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
2. Admissibility and timing of the counter-claim.
3. Entitlement of the plaintiff to the decree in ex-parte proceedings.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The appellant argued that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and that the plaintiff should have pursued remedies under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The Court found this plea devoid of merit. It was held that the Civil Court does not suffer from any inherent lack of jurisdiction. The exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred, and objections to jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest stage. The Court noted that the defendant did not raise this objection at any stage of the proceedings, including in several revisions before the High Court. Therefore, the plea was rejected.

Admissibility and Timing of the Counter-Claim:
The appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in not entertaining his counter-claim filed under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. The Court clarified that a counter-claim must be included in the written statement, and if the right to file a written statement is forfeited, the counter-claim cannot be entertained. The Court emphasized that the purpose of a counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and should not be used to delay the trial. The defendant's counter-claim was found to be an attempt to reopen concluded proceedings, and the Trial Court was justified in not entertaining it. The Court also noted that the averments in the counter-claim were prima facie false.

Entitlement of the Plaintiff to the Decree in Ex-Parte Proceedings:
The appellant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree as prayed for, even in ex-parte proceedings. The Court held that in ex-parte proceedings, the plaintiff must still prove his case to the satisfaction of the Court. The plaintiff had provided prima facie proof of his possessory title and the unauthorized construction by the defendant. The Court found that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the property and was entitled to protect it against the defendant, who had no better title. However, the Court modified the decree to declare the plaintiff's possessory title rather than ownership, as the plaintiff had not perfected his title through a sale deed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The decree declaring the plaintiff as the owner was set aside and modified to declare the plaintiff's possessory title. The defendant was ordered to remove any construction and restore possession to the plaintiff, and was permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession except by due process of law. The costs were to be borne by the defendant up to the High Court, with costs in the Supreme Court to be borne as incurred.