The High Court · 2025

PETITION ERS/Defendants No.2,3 and I Sunkireddv Bharathamma, W/o Sudhakar Reddy, Aged'. 46 ye-ars, Occ Aqriculture R/o Balasaigudem H/o Chetlachennaram vlllage oI Kanagal Mindal, Nalgonda District. 3 AND 1

2. Chinnala Andalu, Wo Lingaiah, Balasaigudem H/o Chetlachennara District. Aged. 56 years, Occ- Agriculture R/o m village of Kanaga I Mandal, Nalgon da 4 vears, Occ. Agriculture R/o f Kanagal Mandal, Nalgonda

3. Bobbala Renuka, Wo Narsimha, Aged. 46 Balasaigudem H/o Chetlachennaram village o District. Bobbala Saidamma, Wo Venkaiah, Aged. 45 years, Oc-c- Agricu.lture R/o 5;;;;G;;, Hio-bn.ttr"r,"nnaram viilage of kanagal lt/landal, Nalgonda District. Bobbala Suryakala, D/o lddaiah, Aged 36 -y99rs, Ocg Agriculture Rl/o E;d;[rG;-H7o'ctiettacnennaram-village of Kanagal Mandal, Nalgonda District. q ',,xll I

6. Bobbala Kavitha, D/o lddaiah, Aged. 35 years, Occ. Aglriculture R/o Balasaigudem H/o Chetlachennaram village of Kanagal Manclal, Nalgonda District. The Respondents No. 2 to 6 are not necessary parties. RESPONDENTS No.1 and 4 to 7 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.42712018 pendin3 on the file Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda till the final disposal of the above revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitione(s). SRl.G.Venkata Narayana Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRJ WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR C.R.P.No.71L of 2o25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dt.30.O7.2024 in IASR.No.3O79 of 2021 in OS. No.427 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, whereby the counter claim filed by the petitioners herein under Order VIII Rule 6,{ of the CPC has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through virtual mode and perused the record.

3. Petitioners herein are the defendants in the above suit frled by the 1"t respondent/plaintiff seeking for gralt of perpetual injunction 1n respect of the suit schedule property i.e., lald admeasuring Acres 2.O3 guntas 1n 341I A2 situated at survey No.340/A ald Chetlachennaram Village, Karragal Mandal, Nalgonda District ,'

4. It is the contention of the petitioners thzrt though they initially filerl a written statement opposing the suit claim in the year 20 18, they had filed the underlying interlocutory application setting up counter claim in the year 2O2l and the Court below without appreciating the r.eason necessitating the filing of counter claim, had rejected the sarne on the ground that the same is not filed within the period prescribed.

5. It is also contended by the petitioners that therc is no limitation prescribed for filing counter claim, and it cal be Iiled at anv time before framing of issues ancl as such the Court belos, erred in not entertaining the counter claim filed by the peritioners.

6. I have taken note of the above submissions madr:. 7 . Before considering the submission s made on Lrehalf of the revision petitioner, it is necessary to examin,: the scope of Orrter VIII Rule 6A of CpC, which provides for counter claim by the defendants in the suit, and it reaCs as under: .,. 3 "6A. Counter-claim bY defeadant- (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the hling of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. whether such counter- claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not : Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (21 Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at Iiberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter- claim of the defendant within such period as may be frxed by the Court. (4) The countOr-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules aPPlicable to Plaints."

8. A reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that a defendant in the srrit can set up, by way of a counter claim 4 against the suit claim, a right or claim in respect of the cause of action accruing to the defendant either belbre or after filing ol the suit, but before the defendart had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence had expired.

9. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, :n the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking perltetual injunction, rvritten statement has been hled long back. Though the petitioners contend that written statemerLt was filed in the 1'ear 2018, a perusal of the copy of the written statement as filed into the Court shows the same having been verified in the year 2014 itself.

10. Notwithstanding the said fact, the petitioners hierein have chosen to file counter claim only in the year 2021 . 1 1. The Court below, by considering the efflux of time from the date of the petitioners filing their written statement in the suit in the year 2014, arrd, placing reljance on the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Ashok I ; I I I I I f I r ' 5 Kumar Kc,lra v, Wind Cdr, Surend,ra Agnihotri and Othersl, had refused to entertain the said counter claim.

12. Further, it is also to be noted that counter claim cal only be raised in relation to the Suit- claim and the petitioners herein by the counter claim have sought for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the 1"t respondent/plaintiff, which claim cannot be permitted to be set up by the petitioners/defendants by way of counter claim, as has been held by the Apex Court in Satgender and Ors. o. Saroj dnd Ors.2.

13. Thus, this Court is of the view that though the Court below had refused to entertain the counter claim filed by the petitioners herein as defendants in the suit on the ground of the same having been preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed, having regard to the position of 1aw as enunciated by the Apex .Court in the ' {zozo) z scc:g+ '?Judgment, dt.17.08.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4833 oF 2022 6 aforementiorred decisions, this Court is of the view that the order of th e Court below in refusing to cntertair_r the counter claim does not suffer from any illegalily or infrrmity for being inr_erfered rvith by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition fails ard dismissed. No order as to costs.

15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/ V, KAVITHA REGISTRAR ()N OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Crv I Judge, at Nalgonda ( with records if any) 2. One CC to SRI G.Venkata Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Yv l I I I i HIGH COURT DArED 07t03t2025 ORDER CRP.No.711 of 2025 i I CIVIL RIVISION PE'I'ITION ]S DISMISSED E-P(4 W irq\ar "..:.. . . ..-..... t... .'j. .;, \: r.i \:) 2 4 APH 2025 lr" t o 5s t,/{IC\ cO o {t I