Summary and Analysis of Rajul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth vs Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr 2025 INSC 1109

1. Heading of the Judgment

Civil Procedure – Counterclaim Against Co-Defendant – Delay in Filing – Specific Performance – Limitation

Citation: Rajul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr., 2025 INSC 1109 (Supreme Court of India, decided on 12.09.2025)

2. Relevant Laws and Legal Provisions

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
  Order VIII Rule 6A: Counterclaim by defendant
  Order VI Rule 17: Amendment of pleadings
  Order XXII Rule 4A: Substitution of legal representatives

• Limitation Act, 1963: Article 54 (Specific Performance)

• Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c) (Readiness and willingness)

• Partition Act, 1893

3. Basic Details of the Case

• Parties:
  Appellant: Rajul Manoj Shah (original plaintiff)
  Respondents: Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel (defendant no. 2) and Nazir, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (representing deceased defendant no. 1)

• Suit: O.S. No. 167 of 2012 filed in City Civil Court, Ahmedabad

• Relief Sought: Declaration that agreement to sell dated 21.10.2011 is void and injunction against transfer of property

• High Court: Allowed amendment and counterclaim via Special Civil Application No. 12701 of 2021

• Supreme Court: Allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Factual Background

• The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit in 2012 seeking declaration that her sister-in-law (defendant no. 1) had no right to sell joint family property without her consent.

• Defendant no. 1 died in 2013. The court appointed a Nazir (court officer) to represent her estate.

• In 2021, defendant no. 2 (respondent no. 1) applied to amend his written statement and file a counterclaim seeking:
  Specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.10.2011
  Partition of the suit property

• The Trial Court dismissed the application. The High Court allowed it. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether a counterclaim can be filed against a co-defendant?

2. Whether a counterclaim can be filed after issues are framed?

3. Whether the counterclaim was barred by limitation?

Supreme Court’s Analysis

a. Counterclaim Against Co-Defendant Not Permissible

• The Court referred to Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, which allows a defendant to set up a counterclaim against the plaintiff.

• Citing Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 12 SCC 734 and Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske (2023) 19 SCC 175, the Court held:
  A counterclaim must be directed against the plaintiff, not a co-defendant.
  A counterclaim solely against a co-defendant is not maintainable.

• In this case, the counterclaim sought specific performance against the deceased defendant no. 1 (represented by the Nazir), not the plaintiff. Hence, it was impermissible.

b. Counterclaim Filed After Framing of Issues Is Barred

• The Court referred to Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri (2020) 2 SCC 394:
  A counterclaim cannot be filed after issues are framed.
  Delay defeats the purpose of speedy justice and procedural efficiency.

• Issues were framed on 12.02.2019. The counterclaim was filed on 26.07.2021 – more than two years later.

• The Court held that such delay is fatal and amounts to an abuse of process.

c. Counterclaim Barred by Limitation

• The agreement to sell was dated 21.10.2011.

• As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, a suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance or from the date of refusal.

• The defendant did not take any steps for specific performance for nearly a decade.

• The Court held that the counterclaim was clearly time-barred.

d. High Court’s Error in Exercising Jurisdiction

• The High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and allowed the counterclaim.

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider:
  The mandatory provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A CPC
  The binding precedents on counterclaims against co-defendants
  The delay and limitation issues

• The High Court’s order was set aside as erroneous and contrary to law.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order.

• The application for amendment and counterclaim filed by defendant no. 2 was dismissed.

• The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the original suit in accordance with the law.

• No costs were awarded.