Legal Review and Analysis of Sanjay Tiwari vs Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao & Ors 2025 INSC 1310

In-Short

Case: Sanjay Tiwari vs Yugal Kishore Prasad & Ors. (2025 INSC 1310): The Supreme Court held that a counter-claim under CPC Order VIII Rule 6A must be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be maintained against a co-defendant, setting aside such a claim while upholding the necessary impleadment of parties.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Sanjay Tiwari vs Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1310
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No.: ……… of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11050 of 2025)
Judges: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date: November 12, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and applies provisions from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):

• Order VIII, Rule 6A: Pertains to the filing of a counter-claim by a defendant against the plaintiff.

• Article 227 of the Constitution of India: Concerning the power of superintendence of the High Court over subordinate courts.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant (Original Plaintiff): Sanjay Tiwari
  Respondents (Original Defendants): Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao (Defendant No. 1) & Others (Defendant Nos. 2 & 3).

• Origin of Case: A suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of land filed by the appellant.

• Procedural History:
  The Trial Court allowed Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to be impleaded and also permitted them to file a counter-claim against Defendant No. 1.
  The High Court, in an application under Article 227, upheld the Trial Court's order, citing the principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation.
  The plaintiff/appellant challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Issue: Maintainability of a Counter-Claim Against a Co-Defendant

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a defendant, after being impleaded in a suit, can file a counter-claim not against the plaintiff, but against a co-defendant.

Factual Matrix and Contradictions

The dispute concerned a piece of land measuring 0.93 acres. The appellant (plaintiff) claimed a specific performance agreement for the entire land with Defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, upon being impleaded, filed a written statement and a counter-claim asserting their own agreement with Defendant No. 1 for the purchase of the same land. However, their pleadings were inconsistent. They initially claimed an agreement for the entire land, but later conceded that a portion (43 decimals) was sold to the plaintiff's father, and their agreement was only for 50 decimals. They also alleged that the plaintiff had fraudulently altered the sale receipt. Furthermore, their claim was filed in 2006 for an agreement dated 2002, making it prima facie barred by limitation.

Legal Reasoning and Precedents

The Supreme Court relied on two key precedents to resolve the issue:

1. Rohit Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2006) 12 SCC 734]: This case laid down a cardinal principle that a counter-claim, even if based on a cause of action different from the suit, must be "incidental or connected" to the suit's cause of action and, crucially, must be directed against the plaintiff. It explicitly held that a counter-claim cannot be directed against a co-defendant.

2. Rajul Mano Shah @ Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr. [(2025) 10 SCR 152]: This judgment emphasized that for a counter-claim to be maintainable against the plaintiff, the defendant must first establish an independent and enforceable right. A claim that is contingent on succeeding against another party (a co-defendant) first cannot be used as a counter-claim against the plaintiff.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Findings

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found the counter-claim filed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to be legally untenable for the following reasons:

• Violation of Procedural Law: The counter-claim was filed against Defendant No. 1 (a co-defendant) and not against the plaintiff. This is a direct violation of the principle established in Rohit Singh under Order VIII, Rule 6A of the CPC.

• Lack of Concrete Claim: The court noted the inherent contradictions and vagueness in the case of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. They failed to present a coherent and concrete claim for specific performance, and their own admissions weakened their position.

• Issue of Limitation: The Court observed that the counter-claim, filed in 2006 for a 2002 agreement, was "grossly delayed" and was "hit by limitation" even at the time of its filing.

The Supreme Court clarified that while the impleadment of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was correct and necessary (as they claimed possession, and the plaintiff may need to seek recovery of possession from them if he succeeds), this did not entitle them to raise a counter-claim against a co-defendant within the same suit.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal filed by the appellant, Sanjay Tiwari.

• The counter-claim filed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was set aside.

• The parties were directed to agitate their remaining claims before the Trial Court.

• The Supreme Court specifically left open all contentions for the Trial Court to decide, except for the issue of the counter-claim, which was conclusively dismissed.

• The Court also refused to grant liberty to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to file a separate suit, as such a claim was already barred by limitation.

6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment

1. As per the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Tiwari vs Yugal Kishore Prasad, a counter-claim under Order VIII, Rule 6A of the CPC?
A) Can be filed against any party in the suit.
B) Must necessarily be directed against the plaintiff and not a co-defendant.
C) Can only be filed if it arises from the exact same cause of action as the suit.
D) Is permissible against a co-defendant if it helps avoid multiplicity of litigation.

2. In the present case, the Supreme Court set aside the counter-claim of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 on the primary ground that?
A) The High Court did not have the jurisdiction under Article 227.
B) The suit for specific performance by the plaintiff was not maintainable.
C) A counter-claim against a co-defendant is not legally permissible.
D) Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were not necessary parties to the suit.