Introduction
In Sanjay Tiwari v. Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 13563 of 2025, decided on 12th November 2025, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that a counter claim cannot be directed against a co-defendant and such a claim does not survive merely on the basis of impleadment in the suit.

Background
The Appellant, Sanjay Tiwari filed a suit for specific performance against Defendant No. 1 based on an alleged oral agreement to sell 0.93 acres of land, supported by payment of consideration via demand drafts and a contemporaneous receipt. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who were not originally parties to the suit, later sought impleadment on the ground that they had a prior agreement with Defendant No. 1 for purchase of a portion of the same land.

Upon being impleaded, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 raised a counter claim seeking specific performance against Defendant No. 1, claiming they had paid Rs. 2,95,000/- as part consideration. The Trial Court allowed the counter claim. The Appellant challenged this in the High Court under Article 227 but the challenge was dismissed, which led to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court ’s Findings
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal thereby rejecting the counter claim raised by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 holding that Counter Claim must be against the Plaintiff and not co-defendant. The Court reaffirmed that Order 8 Rule 6A CPC permits counter claims only against the plaintiff. A counter claim directed against a co-defendant is not maintainable, even if the cause of action is distinct or connected. The Court observed that the cause of action arose in December 2002 and the counter claim was raised only in 2006, beyond the prescribed limitation period for seeking specific performance under the Limitation Act, 1963. The counter claim lacked specific averments regarding payment of full consideration or continued willingness to perform.

Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 failed to demonstrate a legal right to seek conveyance of the entire land. While the impleadment of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 cured the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties for the plaintiff’s case, it did not give rise to a substantive right to file a counter claim against another defendant. Given that the counter claim itself was time-barred, the Court declined to grant liberty to file a fresh suit.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the counter claim filed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 against their co-defendant (Defendant No. 1) was not maintainable under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as a counter claim must be directed only against the plaintiff. It further held that even if the 2nd and 3rd defendants were impleaded as necessary parties on account of possession, such impleadment did not entitle them to raise an independent counter claim for specific performance. The Court found that the counter claim was barred by limitation, lacked a concrete contractual foundation and was legally unsustainable. The Civil Appeal was accordingly allowed, the counter claim was rejected, and the parties were left to pursue the remaining issues before the Trial Court, if raised appropriately¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar