SC: No Counterclaims After Issues Framed or on Co-Defendant
September 15, 2025
Supreme Court: No Counterclaim After Issues Are Framed or Solely Against Co-Defendant
Top Court Clarifies Order VIII Rule 6A CPC — Counterclaims Must Be Against Plaintiff, Not Just Co-Defendants
Ruling Bars Late Counterclaims Once Trial Issues Are Settled; Protects Procedural Fairness in Civil Suits
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi, September 15, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the scope and timing of counter-claims in civil suits. The Court ruled that a counter-claim cannot be filed after the issues in a case have been framed and cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant.
The decision, delivered by a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, reinforces earlier precedents, including the landmark Rohit Singh vs. State of Bihar ruling, and aims to prevent misuse of the counter-claim provision under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The Case That Sparked the Ruling
The matter arose from a family property dispute in Gujarat. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a declaration that her sister-in-law (Defendant No. 1) had no right to transfer joint family property, and to annul an agreement to sell executed in favour of Defendant No. 2.
During the proceedings, Defendant No. 1 passed away, and the court appointed the Nazir of the City Civil Court as her legal representative. Several years later, Defendant No. 2 sought to amend his written statement to include a counter-claim for specific performance of the sale agreement and to seek partition of the property.
The trial court rejected the application, holding that:
- A counterclaim cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant.
- The relief sought was barred by limitation.
However, the Gujarat High Court reversed this decision, reasoning that the cause of action arose upon the Nazir’s appointment as legal representative. The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The apex court set aside the High Court’s order, making two key points:
1. Counterclaims Must Be Against the Plaintiff
The Court reiterated that Order VIII Rule 6A CPC allows a defendant to file a counter-claim only against the plaintiff, though it may incidentally involve co-defendants. A counter-claim solely against a co-defendant is not maintainable.
Quoting from the earlier Rohit Singh judgment, the bench noted:
“A counter-claim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against co-defendants. But a counter-claim directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained.”
2. Timing is Crucial — No Counter-Claims After Issues Are Framed
The Court also stressed that a counter-claim must be filed before the framing of issues in the suit. Once issues are framed and the trial has substantially progressed, allowing a counter-claim would disrupt the proceedings and prejudice the other parties.
This aligns with the principle that civil procedure timelines are designed to ensure fairness and efficiency.
Why This Matters
This ruling has two major implications for civil litigation in India:
- Prevents Procedural Abuse — Defendants cannot use counter-claims as a tactical weapon to delay proceedings or introduce unrelated disputes late in the trial.
- Clarifies Legal Boundaries — Lawyers and litigants now have a clear, binding interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, reducing ambiguity in future cases
Legal Context: Order VIII Rule 6A CPC
Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC allows a defendant to file a counter-claim against the plaintiff for any cause of action accruing before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time for delivering his defence has expired.
The provision was designed to:
- Avoid multiple suits between the same parties.
- Enable the court to settle all disputes in one proceeding.
However, the Supreme Court has now reaffirmed that this cannot be stretched to include disputes solely between co-defendants.
Expert Reactions
Legal experts have welcomed the judgment as a necessary clarification.
Senior Advocate Ritin Rai, who represented the appellant, said the ruling “restores procedural discipline” and prevents “litigation from turning into an inter-pleader suit between defendants.”
Advocate Pradhuman Gohil, appearing for the respondent, acknowledged that while the decision narrows the scope of counter-claims, it also “ensures that the original suit’s focus remains intact.”
Past Precedent: Rohit Singh Case
The Court’s reliance on Rohit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2006) is notable. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that a counter-claim solely against co-defendants was impermissible, as it would convert the litigation into a dispute between defendants, sidelining the plaintiff’s claim.
By reaffirming this precedent, the Court has signalled that this is now settled law.
Impact on Future Litigation
- For Plaintiffs: Greater protection from procedural surprises late in the trial.
- For Defendants: A reminder to raise all counter-claims early and ensure they are directed at the plaintiff.
- For Courts: Reduced risk of trials being derailed by unrelated disputes.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Counter-claims must be against the plaintiff — incidental claims against co-defendants are allowed, but not sole claims.
- No counter-claims after issues are framed — timing is critical.
- Precedent reaffirmed — Rohit Singh remains the guiding authority.
- Procedural discipline reinforced — litigation must remain focused on the original cause of action.
ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES
SC: Beggars’ Homes Are Constitutional Trusts, Ensure Dignity
SC Pauses Key Parts of Waqf Amendment Act 2025
SC: Must Record Reasons for Warrantless Searches
Paying for Daughter’s Marriage is a Father’s Duty, Orders ₹10 Lakh Contribution Despite Divorce
Supreme Court Orders All Bail Pleas to Be Decided Within Two Months to Protect Personal Liberty
Plaint Cannot Be Rejected If Even One Relief Is Maintainable
SC Orders SIT with Hindu-Muslim Officers to Probe 2023 Akola Clashes
Supreme Court Acquits Uttarakhand Doctor Under Right of Private Defence
Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence in POCSO Case, Clarifies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine
Supreme Court Refuses Plea to Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 Match