Rakesh Kumar vs Paramjit Saroy And Another
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
116-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.8036 of 2026
Date of decision:31.10.2026
Rakesh Kumar
…Petitioner
Versus
Paramjit Saroy and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present :- Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
and Mr. Hitesh Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*
MANDEEP PANNU, J . (Oral)
1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2026
passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, whereby the
application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
seeking rejection of the counter-claim filed by respondent/defendant No.1
in the recovery suit has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner,
Rakesh Kumar, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.21,64,301/- along with
pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the suit till realization. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant
had borrowed various amounts from him on different dates, which were
NEETU RANI
2026.11.02 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CR No.8036 of 2026 -2-
repayable along with interest. Despite making certain repayments, the
defendant allegedly failed to clear the outstanding amount. The plaintiff
further alleged that despite service of a legal notice, the defendant failed to
discharge his liability, compelling him to institute the suit.
3. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement-cum-
counter-claim, raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability
of the suit, absence of cause of action, and mis-joinder and non-joinder of
necessary parties. In the counter-claim, defendant No.1 alleged that he had
advanced a total sum of ₹16,76,000/- to the plaintiff and his family
members as friendly loans, which remained unpaid despite repeated
requests. He further asserted that the plaintiff had falsely claimed recovery
of the alleged loan amount with interest and sought to evade his liability to
pay the sale consideration of the flat purchased from defendant No.1. By
way of counter-claim, the defendant sought a decree for mandatory
injunction directing the plaintiff to settle the accounts and pay the amount
found due, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date
of payment till realization, besides costs.
4. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application seeking rejection
of the counter-claim on the grounds that the counter-claimant was required
to pay proper and valid ad-valorem court-fee on the counter-claim, as the
same was, in substance, a suit for recovery of money. It was further averred
that the counter-claim was hopelessly barred by limitation. On these
grounds, the plaintiff sought rejection of the counter-claim.
5. In reply to the application, the defendant contended that the
NEETU RANI
2026.11.02 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CR No.8036 of 2026 -3-
counter-claim sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the
plaintiff to settle the accounts with him and to pay the amount found due,
along with interest. It was, therefore, denied that ad valorem court fee was
payable on the counter-claim. The plea that the counter-claim was barred
by limitation was also denied.
6. Learned trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff
seeking rejection of the counter-claim, observing that the objection
regarding territorial jurisdiction could not be conclusively decided without
evidence and, therefore, did not warrant rejection of the counter-claim at
the threshold. With regard to the objection pertaining to court-fee, the trial
Court observed that the counter-claim was one for rendition of accounts,
wherein the claimant was permitted to tentatively value the relief, subject
to payment of appropriate court-fee upon determination of the amount
found due. It further observed that any deficiency in court-fee was a
curable defect and did not ipso facto entail rejection of the counter-claim
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court also held that the objections
regarding limitation and absence of cause of action involved mixed
questions of fact and law, which could not be decided without evidence and
were not apparent from the pleadings. Accordingly, the application for
rejection of the counter-claim was dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff-
petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition against respondent/
defendant No.1, who is the counter-claimant.
8. The contention of the petitioner is that the counter-claim is
NEETU RANI
2026.11.02 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CR No.8036 of 2026 -4-
hopelessly barred by limitation and that the counter-claimant has failed to
affix the requisite ad-valorem court fee, despite seeking recovery of the
amount allegedly due to him pursuant to rendition of accounts. It is further
contended that the counter-claim, though couched as one for mandatory
injunction, essentially seeks recovery of money and is therefore liable to be
rejected.
9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to
the filing of the counter-claim, the counter-claimant has instituted a separate
civil suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction,
seeking cancellation of Sale Deed No.2425 dated 29.10.2020. The counter-
claimant alleges that the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner
for a sale consideration of Rs.11,76,000/-, which was never paid, and that the
cheques allegedly issued towards the sale consideration were never delivered
to him. On this basis, he seeks cancellation of the sale deed.
10. The short question involved in the present revision petition is
whether learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the counter-
claim on the grounds of limitation and non-payment of the requisite ad-
valorem court fee. In view of the short question involved, issuance of
notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone
through the record carefully.
12. The principal contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the counter-claim is barred by limitation and that the
NEETU RANI
2026.11.02 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CR No.8036 of 2026 -5-
counter-claimant has failed to pay the requisite ad-valorem court-fee.
However, a perusal of the counterclaim reveals that the relief sought therein
is for rendition of accounts and, consequently, payment of the amount
found due along with interest. The counter-claimant has valued the relief at
Rs.200/- and paid court fee of Rs. 25/- thereon.
13. Insofar as the objection regarding court-fee is concerned, it is
well settled that in a suit for rendition of accounts, the plaintiff is entitled to
tentatively value the relief claimed, subject to payment of appropriate court-
fee upon determination of the amount found due. In the present case, the
counter-claimant has not claimed recovery of any specific or ascertained
amount but has sought settlement of accounts and payment of the amount
that may be found due upon such settlement. Therefore, at this stage, the
counter-claim cannot be treated as one for recovery of a specified sum of
money so as to insist upon payment of ad-valorem court-fee on an
unascertained amount. The question of payment of additional court-fee, if
any, would arise upon determination of the amount found due. Consequently,
learned trial Court has rightly rejected the objection regarding insufficiency
of court-fee and declined to reject the counter-claim on this ground.
14. As regards the objection of limitation, the question whether
the counter-claim is barred by limitation cannot be determined merely on
the basis of the pleadings at this stage. The same involves mixed questions
of fact and law, including the nature of the transaction, the circumstances
giving rise to the claim and the date on which the cause of action accrued.
Such questions ordinarily require evidence and cannot be conclusively
NEETU RANI
2026.11.02 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CR No.8036 of 2026 -6-
adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless the bar of limitation is
apparent from the statements contained in the counter-claim itself. In the
present case, the alleged bar of limitation is not apparent from the
pleadings alone. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly declined to reject
the counter-claim on this ground, leaving the question of limitation to be
determined after the parties have led their evidence.
15. The subsequent institution of a separate civil suit by the
counter-claimant seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 29.10.2020
does not alter the position. The said suit is founded upon the allegation of
the counter-claimant that the sale consideration was not paid and that the
cheques allegedly issued towards the consideration were never delivered to
him. The mere institution of the subsequent suit neither establishes nor
extinguishes the cause of action pleaded in the counter-claim. The
maintainability of the counter-claim has to be examined independently on
the basis of its own pleadings and the applicable provisions of law. Any
questions concerning the effect of the subsequent suit or the relationship
between the two proceedings may be considered by the competent Court in
accordance with law.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting
interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Learned trial Court
has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the counter-claim.
17. Consequently, the present civil revision petition is dismissed
NEETU RANI
2026.11.02 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CR No.8036 of 2026 -7-
and the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is upheld.
18. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the counter-claim, including the question of
limitation, which shall be decided by learned trial Court in accordance with
law.
19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
31.10.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
NEETU RANI
2026.11.02 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD