2019 (11) TMI 1848 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure - filing of counter-claims by a Defendant after submitting the written statement - restrictions on filing the counterclaim after filing of the Written Statement. As per N. V. Ramana J. HELD THAT - Rules 1 to 5 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure deal with the written statement. This Order dealing with the written statement was amended extensively by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act No. 22 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as Act 22 of 2002 ) whereby the Defendant shall within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him present a written statement of his defence. In case he fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. In Mahendra Kumar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 1987 (5) TMI 385 - SUPREME COURT where the appeals were preferred against concurrent findings of the Courts below in dismissing the counter-claim as barred Under Section 14 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act 1878 this Court while considering the scope of Rule 6A(1) of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure has held that on the face of it Rule 6A(1) does not bar the filing of a counter-claim by the Defendant after he had filed the written statement. As the cause of action for the counter-claim had arisen before the filing of the written statement the counter-claim was held to be maintainable. The time limitation for filing of the counter-claim is not explicitly provided by the Legislature rather only limitation as to the accrual of the cause of action is provided - As counter-claim is treated to be plaint generally it needs to first of all be compliant with the limitation provided under the Limitation Act 1963 as the time-barred suits cannot be entertained under the guise of the counter-claim just because of the fact that the cause of action arose as per the parameters of Order VIII Rule 6A. Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not put an embargo on filing the counter-claim after filing the written statement rather the restriction is only with respect to the accrual of the cause of action. Having said so this does not give absolute right to the Defendant to file the counter-claim with substantive delay even if the limitation period prescribed has not elapsed. The court has to take into consideration the outer limit for filing the counter-claim which is pegged till the issues are framed. The instant Special Leave Petition may be placed before an appropriate Bench after obtaining orders from the Hon ble Chief Justice of India for considering the case on merits. As per Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J. HELD THAT - A counterclaim can be filed if two conditions are met first its cause of action complies with Order VIII Rule 6A(1); and second it is filed within the period specified under the Limitation Act. Clearly by itself Rule 6A does not specifically require that a counter-claim has to be filed along with the written statement. In the absence of a particular mandate under this Rule it is necessary to look to other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine whether a counter-claim can be filed after a written statement. A plain reading of Order VIII Rule 9 makes it clear that the Court has the discretion to allow any subsequent pleading upon such terms as it thinks fit. It is important to appreciate here that such subsequent pleading or additional written statement may include a counter-claim. This is because Rule 9 does not create a bar on the nature of claims that can be raised as subsequent pleadings. As long as the Court considers that it would be proper to allow a counter-claim by way of a subsequent pleading it is possible to file a counter-claim after filing the written statement. A conjoint and harmonious reading of Rules 6A 9 and 10 of Order VIII as well as Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure thus reveals that the Court is vested with the discretion to allow the filing of a counterclaim even after the filing of the written statement as long as the same is within the limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act 1963. It is well-settled that procedural Rules should not be interpreted so as to defeat justice rather than furthering it. This is because procedural law is not meant to serve as a tyrant against justice but to act as a lubricant in its administration. Thus when Courts set out to do justice they should not lose sight of the end goal amidst technicalities. In some cases this means that Rules that have traditionally been treated as mandatory may be moulded so that their object and substantive justice is not obstructed. It would be apposite to remember that equity and justice should be the foremost considerations while construing procedural rules without nullifying the object of the Legislature in totality. Thus Rules under the Limitation Act which may allow for filing of a belated counter-claim up to a long period of time should not be used to defeat the ends of justice. Even though Rule 6A permits the filing of a counter-claim after the written statement the Court has the discretion to refuse such filing if it is done at a highly belated stage. However in my considered opinion to ensure speedy disposal of suits propriety requires that such discretion should only be exercised till the framing of issues for trial. Allowing counter-claims beyond this stage would not only prolong the trial but also prejudice the rights that may get vested with the Plaintiff over the course of time. It is not mandatory for a counter-claim to be filed along with the written statement. The Court in its discretion may allow a counter-claim to be filed after the filing of the written statement in view of the considerations mentioned in the preceding paragraph. However propriety requires that such discretion should ordinarily be exercised to allow the filing of a counterclaim till the framing of issues for trial. Conclusion - While Order VIII Rule 6A provides a statutory framework for filing counter-claims it does not rigidly mandate filing simultaneously with the written statement.

Summary

Several core legal questions arise concerning the interpretation and application of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically regarding the filing of counter-claims by a Defendant after submitting the written statement. The principal issues considered are:

1) Whether Order VIII Rule 6A mandates an absolute embargo on filing a counter-claim after the written statement has been filed;

2) If no such embargo exists, what restrictions or conditions govern the filing of a counter-claim subsequent to the written statement;

3) The extent of the Court's discretion in permitting belated counter-claims;

4) The interplay between procedural rules and substantive justice in the context of counter-claims;

5) The temporal limits within which a counter-claim may be filed, especially with reference to the framing of issues and commencement of trial;

6) The applicability and effect of related provisions such as Order VIII Rules 6, 6B, 9, 10, and Order VI Rule 17;

7) The effect of the Limitation Act, 1963, on the filing and maintenance of counter-claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Whether Order VIII Rule 6A mandates an embargo on filing counter-claims after the written statement?

The Court examined the language and legislative intent behind Order VIII Rule 6A, introduced by the 1976 Amendment Act based on Law Commission recommendations to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Rule 6A(1) permits a Defendant to set up a counter-claim for any cause of action accruing before or after filing the suit but before delivering the defence (i.e., before or within the time allowed for filing the written statement). The Rule does not explicitly require the counter-claim to be filed along with the written statement, nor does it expressly bar filing after the written statement.

Precedents such as Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh clarified that Rule 6A(1) does not bar filing counter-claims after the written statement, provided the cause of action accrued before the defence was delivered. The Court emphasized that the limitation is on the accrual of the cause of action, not the timing of filing the counter-claim itself.

Order VIII Rule 9 further empowers the Court with discretion to permit subsequent pleadings, including counter-claims, after the written statement. Similarly, Order VI Rule 17 allows amendments to pleadings subject to leave of the Court. These provisions collectively indicate that the filing of counter-claims after the written statement is not absolutely prohibited but subject to judicial discretion.

The Court rejected the argument that counter-claims must always be part of the written statement, noting practical difficulties such as unawareness of the cause of action at the time of filing the written statement and socio-economic factors affecting litigants' access to justice.

2. Restrictions on filing counter-claims after the written statement

While no absolute embargo exists, the Court underscored that counter-claims must comply with the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963, treating counter-claims as plaints for limitation purposes. Section 3(2)(b)(ii) of the Limitation Act deems a counter-claim instituted on the date it is made in Court, thus imposing a temporal boundary.

The Court also emphasized that the filing of belated counter-claims is subject to the Court's discretion, which must balance the interests of justice and the need for speedy trial. The discretion is guided by factors such as the period of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice to the opposite party, similarity of cause of action, cost of fresh litigation, and abuse of process.

Crucially, the Court held that counter-claims should not be permitted after framing of issues and commencement of trial as it would cause undue delay, prejudice, and potentially amount to a re-trial, defeating the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

Earlier judgments such as Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya and Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar reinforce this principle, disallowing counter-claims filed after framing of issues or closing of evidence as illegal or without jurisdiction.

3. Court's discretion in permitting belated counter-claims

The Court elaborated that procedural law serves to facilitate justice rather than impede it. Thus, rigid, hyper-technical interpretations of procedural rules are to be avoided. The Court must exercise its discretion judiciously, considering the objects of the amendment (expediting disposal, avoiding multiplicity, ensuring fair trial) and the facts of each case.

Belated counter-claims may be allowed if no prejudice is caused to the Plaintiff, the trial is not unduly delayed, and the interests of justice are served. The Court may also allow counter-claims after framing of issues but before commencement of evidence in exceptional circumstances to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

The Court cautioned that refusal to entertain belated counter-claims ordinarily does not prejudice the Defendant, who remains free to institute a separate suit based on the cause of action.

4. Interaction between procedural rules and substantive justice

The Court stressed that procedural justice is a means to achieve substantive justice. While procedural rules provide certainty and clarity, they should not be interpreted so rigidly as to cause injustice or obstruct the ends of justice. The Court referred to precedents emphasizing that procedural law is a servant, not a tyrant, of justice.

Accordingly, the Court rejected interpretations that would unduly curtail a Defendant's right to file counter-claims or that would frustrate the legislative intent behind Order VIII Rule 6A.

5. Temporal limits for filing counter-claims relative to framing of issues and trial

The Court clarified that while counter-claims may be filed after the written statement, they should ordinarily be filed before the framing of issues. Filing counter-claims after framing issues and commencement of trial is generally impermissible as it would cause delay and prejudice. However, in exceptional cases, counter-claims may be allowed up to the commencement of recording evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff.

This nuanced position balances the need for procedural certainty and the practicalities of litigation, ensuring that counter-claims serve their purpose of avoiding multiplicity without causing undue disruption.

6. Applicability of related provisions (Order VIII Rules 6, 6B, 9, 10; Order VI Rule 17)

Order VIII Rule 6 governs set-offs and requires them to be part of the written statement, but the Court distinguished set-offs from counter-claims, noting that set-offs must arise from the same transaction and be of the same nature as the Plaintiff's claim, whereas counter-claims may arise from any cause of action against the Plaintiff.

Rule 6B requires that a Defendant state specifically in the written statement if relying on a counter-claim, but the Court held this applies only when the counter-claim is filed with the written statement and does not bar belated counter-claims filed later with leave of the Court.

Order VIII Rule 9 permits subsequent pleadings after the written statement by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim without leave of Court, but other pleadings require leave, giving the Court discretion to allow belated counter-claims.

Order VIII Rule 10 empowers the Court to make orders if a party fails to file a written statement within time, including condoning delay, which the Court interpreted as also permitting condonation of delay in filing counter-claims.

Order VI Rule 17 allows amendments to pleadings with leave of the Court, including amendments to add counter-claims, subject to judicial discretion.

7. Effect of the Limitation Act on counter-claims

The Court emphasized that counter-claims are treated as separate suits for limitation purposes under Section 3(2)(b)(ii) of the Limitation Act. Therefore, a counter-claim must be filed within the applicable limitation period, failing which it is barred. This limitation acts as a substantive restriction beyond procedural rules and is critical in determining maintainability.

Significant Holdings

"Rule 6A(1) of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure does not put an embargo on filing the counter-claim after filing the written statement, rather the restriction is only with respect to the accrual of the cause of action."

"The Court has to take into consideration the outer limit for filing the counter-claim, which is pegged till the issues are framed."

"The Court in such cases has the discretion to entertain filing of the counter-claim, after taking into consideration and evaluating inclusive factors such as period of delay, limitation period, reason for delay, assertion of right, similarity of cause of action, cost of fresh litigation, injustice and abuse of process, prejudice to the opposite party and facts and circumstances of each case."

"A Defendant cannot be permitted to file counter-claim after the issues are framed and after the suit has proceeded substantially, as it would defeat the cause of justice and be detrimental to the principle of speedy justice."

"Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice."

"It is not mandatory for a counter-claim to be filed along with the written statement. The Court, in its discretion, may allow a counter-claim to be filed after the filing of the written statement."

"In exceptional circumstances, a counter-claim may be permitted to be filed after a written statement till the stage of commencement of recording of the evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff."

These holdings establish that while Order VIII Rule 6A provides a statutory framework for filing counter-claims, it does not rigidly mandate filing simultaneously with the written statement. The Court's discretion is paramount, exercised in light of procedural fairness, limitation laws, and the overarching objective to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure speedy and effective justice.