Counter Claim of Adjoining Property – Scope of Order VII Rule 6C CPC Clarified
Civil Suit & Counter Claim – Different Properties
Judgment dated 29.9/2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.409 of 2026 of M/s Ganesh Land Developers & Construction Private Limited and others Vs. Shradhha Realtors and others
Rejection of Counter Claim under Order VII Rule 6C CPC for
The plaintiff filed civil suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the sut property.
The defendants filed counter claim that the plaintiff is trying to encroach on their property and they are the owners of the said counter claim property.
Thereafter, Respondent No.1-Original Plaintiff filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, seeking rejection of the Counter-claim on the ground that it was unconnected with the suit properties, and another suit, being RCS No. 84 of 2023, wherein the Counter-claim property was the subject matter, instituted by the third parties, was sub-judice.
In the light of the aforesaid position in law, re-adverting to the facts of the case, the prime reason which seems to have weighed with the trial Court is that, the properties in the suit and the counter-claim were different and there did not appear to be any nexus between the properties in the suit and the counter-claim. In law, as noted above, 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. 37. Even on facts, the learned Civil Judge, was in error in observing that, there was no nexus between the suit properties and the counter claim properties. Not only in the description of the suit properties, were the counter-claim properties shown to be situated on the northern boundary of the suit properties but also in Paragraph No. 19 of the plaint, the plaintiff has made categorical assertion that, the counter claim properties i.e. Survey Nos. 121/3 and 93/A/2/K/3 were situated on the northern side of the suit properties and the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 were the common owners of the said properties.
This Court finds that, in the facts of the case, the determination of the suit and the cross-suit, in one and the same proceeding, is indispensable for a complete and effectual adjudication of all the disputes between the parties. The exclusion of the counter-claim will give rise to multiplicity of the proceedings and is also fraught with the risk of protracted litigation and conflicting orders as well.
