MARIANO FERNANDES v. TARKESHWAR GUPTA
Maintainability of Counterclaims in Civil Suits – Counterclaims arising from the same chain of transactions and continuous dealings between parties cannot be excluded under Order VIII Rule 6C of the CPC.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:475
Decision Date: 11-03-2026
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC; Order VIII Rule 6C of the CPC; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Specific Performance of Contract
- Facts: The Respondent (Original Plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance against the Petitioners (Original Defendants) based on an unregistered sale deed for property Survey No. 168/2-A. The transaction was part of a broader arrangement involving an "Agreement for Management of Property" where the Respondent managed a guest house on the Petitioners' adjacent property (Survey No. 168/2 part). The Petitioners filed a written statement along with a counterclaim seeking a direction for the Respondent to vacate the five rooms on Survey No. 168/2 and claiming monetary dues from the management arrangement. The Respondent moved an application for exclusion of this counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6C of the CPC, arguing it was unrelated to the main suit property.
- Procedural Posture: The Civil Judge Senior Division allowed the Respondent's application and excluded the counterclaim by order dated 12th July 2023. The Petitioners challenged this exclusion through the present Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
- Issue: Whether a counterclaim can be maintained when it relates to a property or transaction that is part of the same chain of dealings between the parties, even if it is not identical to the property mentioned in the original plaint.
- Holding: Yes, the counterclaim is maintainable as the transactions form part and parcel of the same chain of action.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the entire transaction, including the management of the five rooms and the purported sale deed, appeared to be part of one continuous transaction between the parties. Under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC, a defendant can set up a counterclaim in respect of a cause of action accruing either before or after the filing of the suit. Distinguishing the precedent in "Satyender v. Saroj", the Court noted that unlike that case where the counterclaim had no link to the suit property, here the properties were adjacent and the dispute stemmed from a shared business relationship. Excluding the counterclaim would deprive the Petitioners of agitating their defense in a comprehensive manner.
🔒 For Members Only