Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court

"The Suit shall be adjudicated without the counter claim." Supreme Court of India, in a ruling, held that a counter claim cannot be permitted after the conclusion of the trial, especially when a defendant fails to pay the requisite court fees despite multiple opportunities.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the procedural latitude for amendments or late filings is governed by strict parameters, particularly once the trial has commenced, and cannot be invoked merely due to a lack of financial capacity.

The dispute arose between IJM Corporation Berhad and M/s Lakshmi Sai Constructions Company regarding a counter claim filed in a suit. Although the defendant had initially mentioned a counter claim in its written statement in 2015, the court did not take it on record as the defendant failed to pay the necessary court fees. The trial proceeded, and after the evidence of both parties was closed in 2020, the defendant moved an application to pay the court fees and prosecute the counter claim, which was allowed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a counter claim can be revived and allowed by the trial court after the trial has effectively concluded. The Court was further required to determine whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), specifically regarding the amendment of pleadings and payment of court fees, permit such a late-stage inclusion of a counter claim without satisfying the rigorous tests of due diligence.

Court Rejects Application Post-Conclusion of Trial

The Supreme Court noted that when the written statement was originally submitted, the defendant explicitly requested that only the written statement be taken on record due to an inability to pay court fees. Consequently, there was no counter claim in existence on the court record. The bench emphasized that the trial had already reached a stage where all evidence had been closed, rendering the subsequent application for the counter claim procedurally untenable.

Strict Application of Order VI Rule 17 CPC

The Court underscored that under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, while pleadings may be amended at any stage, the proviso strictly limits amendments after the commencement of trial. An amendment can only be allowed if the court concludes that the party was prevented from raising the matter despite acting with due diligence. In this case, the defendant failed to plead or prove any such justification, relying solely on financial incapacity.

"The only ground is of lack of financial capacity which too, in any event has to be pleaded and proved when amendment is sought."

No Prejudice to the Plaintiff

The bench further highlighted that because the counter claim was never on the record during the trial, the plaintiff was never provided an opportunity to adduce evidence to controvert the defendant's claims. Permitting such a claim after the closure of evidence would be legally impermissible and highly prejudicial to the original plaintiff. The Court found no justification for the High Court's decision to affirm the Trial Court's order.

"When the counter claim was not on record, the plaintiff necessarily would not have adduced evidence to controvert the same."

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The Court directed that the suit proceed to adjudication strictly without the counter claim, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to procedural milestones in civil litigation.

Date of Decision: 28 July 2026