-
by sayum
08 July 2026 4:03 PM
“Counter-claims under Order VIII CPC are strictly between the plaintiff and the defendant — not among co-defendants” — In a notable interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) within the context of commercial litigation, the Calcutta High Court dismissed an application by Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) seeking leave to file a written rejoinder to a counter-claim raised by another co-defendant (Defendant No. 3). The Court firmly held that no inter-defendant pleading is permissible under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC, and such a move would create an “impermissible trial within a trial.”
“Counter-Claim Must Be Between Plaintiff and Defendant – Not Co-defendants”: Clear Interpretation of CPC
Justice Aniruddha Roy, rejecting the application, made it clear that Order VIII Rule 6A CPC does not contemplate counter-claims between co-defendants. The Court emphasized that counter-claims are legally structured to address disputes only between the plaintiff and the defendant. Consequently, the applicant’s request to contest a co-defendant’s counter-claim was outside the permissible framework of the CPC.
“All these provisions laid down under Order VIII of CPC unambiguously and without any doubt demonstrate that a counter-claim would only lie in between the plaintiff and defendant and not in between the defendants.” — Para 14 of the Judgment
The applicant had argued that since the counter-claim by Defendant No. 3 made assertions against it, it should be treated as a party entitled to reply under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, which governs additional pleadings by “any party.”
However, the Court rejected that interpretation by invoking the principle of ejusdem generis — a rule of statutory interpretation whereby general terms must be understood in the context of specific ones.
“Applying the said doctrine, this Court is of the considered view that... the expression ‘parties’ used under Rule 9(2) to Order VIII, insofar as counter-claim is concerned, has to be read, construed and understood between the plaintiff and the defendant and not between the defendants.” — Para 16
“Trial Within a Trial Between Co-defendants Is Legally Impermissible”
Emphasizing the procedural mischief that would result if the application were allowed, the Court observed that permitting such an additional written statement would cause fragmentation of the trial, effectively turning it into a litigation arena between co-defendants, something the CPC explicitly does not allow.
“In the event the contention of the applicant is accepted... there will be a trial within the trial in a single suit in between the defendants, which is not permitted in law.” — Para 20
Frivolous and Dilatory Pleading Attracts Costs for Abuse of Process
In strong words, the Court termed the application a frivolous and harassive attempt to delay the trial of the commercial suit, imposing costs of ₹10,000 on Defendant No. 1, payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
“This Court is of the considered view that the instant application is totally frivolous, harassive and a ploy adopting a dilatory tactic to delay the trial of the commercial suit.” — Para 21
The Calcutta High Court, through this judgment, reinforced a fundamental procedural safeguard: co-defendants cannot file pleadings against each other through the mechanism of counter-claims in civil suits governed by the CPC. By interpreting the statute strictly in light of its structure and intent — and rejecting broader interpretations of the word “parties” under Order VIII Rule 9 — the Court prevented what it viewed as an abuse of procedural law.
This judgment serves as a clear precedent within the commercial litigation landscape, drawing a line against intra-defendant litigation tactics under the guise of counter-claims.
“Accordingly, the instant application... stands dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the defendant No.1.”
Date of Decision: 13/11/2025
