Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim

"The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints" — Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) has delivered a significant ruling on the scope and limitations of counter claims under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that a counter claim, being required to be treated as a plaint in every respect, cannot bring within its fold properties that lie beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court before which the original suit is pending.

Justice Ashish Shroti, dismissing the miscellaneous petition filed by one of the defendants in a civil title dispute, made clear that a counter claim is not a mere procedural appendage to a written statement — it is in substance an independent suit, and must satisfy every requirement that a plaint is required to satisfy, including compliance with the rules of territorial jurisdiction.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Gopal Krishan Premi and Ballabhdas — legal heirs of one Surajbhan — before the First Additional Judge, Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guna, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a house known as Premi House situated at Jaistambh Chauraha, A.B. Road, Guna.

Shyamswaroop Agrawal, the petitioner before the High Court, is a son of Babulal — brother of Surajbhan — and was subsequently impleaded as Defendant No. 8 in the suit. Along with Defendant No. 9, he filed a written statement accompanied by a counter claim on 18 April 2024, seeking a decree of partition and declaration of title in respect of certain properties situated at village Ruthiyai, District Guna — a locality falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Raghogarh, and not Guna.

The plaintiffs moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the counter claim, arguing that the defendants had failed to plead any cause of action and that properties beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Guna Court could not be made the subject matter of a counter claim before it. The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the counter claim. The defendant's appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC was dismissed by the Sixth District Judge, Guna, on 16 September 2025. The petitioner thereupon approached the High Court.

Legal Issues and Court's Observations

Whether a counter claim can include properties situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court

The petitioner's counsel argued that in a partition suit, all joint properties must be included regardless of where they are situated, and that the Trial Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim by virtue of one property being within Guna's jurisdiction.

The Court rejected this contention squarely. Referring to Order VIII Rule 6A(4) CPC — which provides that "the counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints" — Justice Shroti held that the counter claim must independently satisfy the rules of territorial jurisdiction applicable to plaints.

"Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6A of Order 8 provides and makes it specific that the counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. Thus, the counter claim is required to satisfy all the rules which are applicable to plaints which would also include territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court."

The Court further observed that since a counter claim is in the nature of an independent suit — introduced by the 1976 amendment to CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings — the Trial Court must possess jurisdiction over the properties made subject matter of the counter claim, just as it would over properties in an original suit. In the present case, the Ruthiyai properties fell within the jurisdiction of the Court at Raghogarh, not Guna, and the Trial Court accordingly had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the counter claim.

Whether Section 17 CPC could be invoked by reading the plaint and counter claim together

The petitioner contended that since the plaint property lay within Guna Court's jurisdiction and at least one counter claim property was also in Guna district, Section 17 CPC — which permits a suit to be filed in any court within whose jurisdiction any portion of the immovable property is situate — applied to save the counter claim.

The Court firmly rejected the attempt to read the plaint and counter claim together for the purpose of invoking Section 17. Since the counter claim is independent of the plaint, it must itself contain properties situated in the jurisdiction of more than one court before Section 17 can be attracted.

"The petitioner invokes Section 17 CPC by reading plaint and counter claim together, which in the opinion of this Court, is not permissible. The counter claim is required to satisfy the requirement of Section 17 CPC independent of the plaint."

The Court further held that for Section 17 to apply, an additional requirement must be met: the cause of action for filing the suit in respect of properties in different jurisdictions must be one and the same. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Shivnarayan (D) by LRs. v. Maniklal (D) by LRs., (2020) 11 SCC 629, the Court quoted the settled proposition: "A suit in respect of more than one property situated in jurisdiction of different courts can be instituted in a court within local limits of jurisdiction where one or more properties are situated provided suit is based on same cause of action with respect to the properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts."

In the present case, no cause of action had been pleaded at all in the counter claim, and the plaintiffs themselves had not pleaded any cause of action against Defendants 7 to 15 — who were impleaded later under Order I Rule 10 CPC. There was therefore no similarity of cause of action between the plaint and the counter claim, making Section 17 wholly inapplicable.

Counter Claim Directed Solely Against Co-Defendants, Not Against Plaintiffs

The Court also identified an independent and equally fatal defect in the counter claim: the relief of partition sought therein was directed entirely against co-defendants, and not against the plaintiffs in the suit. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 734 to reiterate the settled legal position:

"It is settled legal proposition that a counter claim can be filed by defendant against the plaintiff and not solely against defendants. It may incidentally claim relief against co-defendant. However, reading of the counter claim reflects that the relief of partition is against co-defendants only."

The Court further noted that the counter claim was vague in material particulars — properties at serial numbers 2 to 5 had no addresses mentioned whatsoever — and the cause of action for filing the counter claim had not been specifically pleaded, which the Court held to be a mandatory requirement.

Dismissing the miscellaneous petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the concurrent orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court rejecting the counter claim. The ruling crystallises several foundational principles governing counter claims under the CPC: that a counter claim is an independent suit in substance and must satisfy all requirements of territorial jurisdiction as a plaint; that Section 17 CPC cannot be triggered by clubbing the plaint and counter claim together; that the unity of cause of action is a prerequisite for invoking Section 17; and that a counter claim cannot be filed solely to seek relief against co-defendants, while leaving the plaintiffs largely unaffected.

The judgment serves as an important reminder that the convenience of filing a counter claim within an existing suit does not dilute the jurisdictional discipline that governs independent civil suits under the CPC.

Date of Decision: 17 March 2026