The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rakul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr. 2025 INSC 1109, recently reiterated the position that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC can only be filed against the plaintiff; setting aside the Gujarat High Court's decision that allowed a defendant to file a counter-claim against a co-defendant.

Brief Facts
In the present case, the undivided suit property was jointly-owned by the Appellant and her sister-in-law (Original Defendant No. 1). In January 2012, Defendant No. 1 agreed to sell a portion of the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 2 against which a suit for declaration was filed by the Appellant, alleging that Defendant No. 1 had no right to transfer the property without her consent and the agreement to sell was void.

Subsequently, the Original Defendant No. 1 died while the suit was pending, following which an application for deletion of Original Defendant No. 1 from array of parties was allowed. Defendant No. 2 then moved an application for substitution of Original Defendant No. 1 with a court appointed officer (Nazir) under Order XXII Rule 4A which was rejected by the trial court but was later allowed by the High Court.

Further, Defendant No. 2 moved an application for amendment of the written statement by adding a counter-claim praying for execution of the sale deed for undivided share in furtherance of the agreement to sell and for partition of the suit property.

Trial Court’s Decision
The Trial Court dismissed the amendment application vide order dated 05.08.2021, holding that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A must be against the plaintiff’s claim and that a defendant cannot file a counter-claim directed solely against a co-defendant.

High Court’s Decision
The Gujarat High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, set aside the Trial Court’ decision and permitted the counter-claim, reasoning that the reliefs were not sought solely against a co-defendant but were also directed against the Nazir and the plaintiff, primarily the relief of partition, making the counter-claim maintainable.

Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s refusal to permit the counter-claim. The Supreme Court, relying on Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 734, inter alia, held that Order VIII Rule 6A permits a defendant to set up a counter-claim “against the claim of the plaintiff,”. A counter-claim directed solely at a co-defendant (here, the Nazir/estate of deceased Defendant No.1) is not maintainable. The Court also held that a partition decree presupposes an established right in the claimant and as Defendant No. 2 had no enforceable right against the estate until he succeeded on that front, the prayer for partition could not validate the counter-claim.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, a counter-claim must be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be raised solely against a co-defendant. Hence, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the Trial Court’s rejection of the counter-claim was rightly upheld.

By - Gurdev Singh Tung & Meemansa Dixit