Citation: M/s Ganesh Land Developers & Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Shradhha Realtors & Ors. 2026:BHC-AS:39681
A counter-claim need not relate to the same property or the same cause of action as the plaintiff’s suit. It is enough that the defendant has a claim against the plaintiff which arose before the time for filing the written statement expired. A plaintiff’s application under Order VIII Rule 6-C to exclude a counter-claim does not bind the court, which must exercise its discretion judiciously and with the aim of avoiding multiple proceedings and conflicting orders.
The Bombay High Court has held that a defendant’s counter-claim cannot be thrown out of a suit just because it concerns a different property. Shradhha Realtors sued in Palghar for an injunction, alleging that the defendants obstructed its building project on its land in November 2025. The defendants, including Ganesh Land Developers, filed a counter-claim in the same suit seeking a declaration of ownership of the adjoining lands on the northern side and an injunction against the plaintiff’s encroachment. The Civil Judge excluded the counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-C CPC, saying the two sets of properties were different and had no nexus. Justice N. J. Jamadar quashed this order. He held that a counter-claim only needs a cause of action against the plaintiff that arose before the defendant’s defence was due, and it need not concern the same property or flow from the plaintiff’s cause of action. He read the Supreme Court’s Satyender ruling as concerning a counter-claim that was not against the plaintiff at all and covered land not even mentioned in the plaint, so it did not change this position. He also held that the plaintiff’s request to exclude a counter-claim is not final, because the court must use its discretion judiciously and look at factors such as the nature of the claim, the stage of the suit and the risk of delay. On facts, the plaint itself said that the counter-claim lands lay on the northern side of the suit land, and the dispute arose from the defendants’ claim over these adjoining lands. The court restored the counter-claim, asked the trial court to decide the suit and the counter-claim together as quickly as possible, and expressed no opinion on the merits.
