Raman Kumar vs Parveen Kumar

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 145
CR-8370-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026
RAMAN KUMAR ...Petitioner
Versus
PARVEEN KUMAR ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. Mandeep Singh Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner,
Raman Kumar, against respondent Parveen Kumar, seeking setting aside of
the order dated 13.10.2026 (Annexure P-12) passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby the application under Section 151
CPC moved by the petitioner-defendant for taking his counter-claim on
record was dismissed.
2. The suit was instituted in the year 2023. Thereafter, the
petitioner-defendant appeared before the learned trial Court and availed
various opportunities for filing the written statement. However, on
05.01.2026, instead of filing the written statement, he moved an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The said
application was decided vide order dated 11.05.2026 and was dismissed.
Thereafter, the matter was again adjourned for filing of the written
statement, which was eventually filed by the petitioner-defendant on
04.08.2026.
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 2
3. In the written statement, the petitioner-defendant, while denying
his liability to pay the suit amount, took the stand that he had already
returned a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff in cash on
20.02.2021, as the latter had requested for the amount for his personal use
and had not encashed cheque No.000142. He further pleaded that a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred into the bank account of the respondent-
plaintiff on 24.02.2021 and, subsequently, another sum of Rs.50,000/- was
paid on 23.12.2021.Thus, according to the petitioner-defendant, he had paid
a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff. He further denied
any liability to pay interest, contending that there was no such stipulation in
the agreement.
4. Thereafter, issues were framed in the case on 18.08.2026 and
the matter was fixed for the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff, while
appearing as PW-1, tendered his examination-in-chief, however, his cross-
examination was deferred at the request of the petitioner-defendant, subject
to payment of costs, and the case was adjourned. Subsequently, the
petitioner-defendant moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking
permission to bring his counter-claim on record. No reply to the said
application was filed by the respondent-plaintiff. However, vide the
impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, dismissed
the aforesaid application.
5. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, dismissed the
application primarily on the ground that the counter-claim was sought to be
introduced at a highly belated stage, after framing of issues and
commencement of the plaintiff's evidence, whereas the defendant had
already filed his written statement on 04.08.2026. It was observed that the
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 3
defendant had knowledge of the alleged excess payment of Rs.50,000/- since
the stage of filing the written statement itself, wherein he had specifically
pleaded payment of Rs.7,50,000/- against the suit claim of Rs.4,50,000/-, but
had failed to raise any counter-claim at that stage.
6. The Court further observed that no justification or due diligence
had been shown for introducing the counter-claim belatedly, particularly
when the alleged payment of Rs.50,000/- was made on 23.12.2021 and the
claim was held to be time-barred. Relying upon the principles laid down in
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing
Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri and others, (2020) 2 SCC 394 , the learned trial
Court held that entertaining the counter-claim at the stage of plaintiff's
evidence would disrupt the trial and prejudice the plaintiff. Accordingly, the
application was dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner-
defendant has preferred the present civil revision petition seeking setting
aside of the same.
8. Since a short question is involved in the present revision
petition, no notice is issued to the respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant contends that the
learned trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously while
dismissing the application for taking the counter-claim on record. It is
argued that the delay in completion of pleadings was not attributable to the
petitioner, particularly when the respondent-plaintiff himself had taken time
to make good the deficiency in court fee, pursuant to the order dated
11.05.2026, which was complied with only on 14.07.2026. It is further
contended that the petitioner filed his written statement on 04.08.2026 and
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 4
moved the application for taking the counter-claim on record within a
reasonable period thereafter.
10. Learned counsel submits that the alleged excess payment of
Rs.50,000/- was made through bank transfer on 23.12.2021, a fact duly
reflected in the plaint itself, and the claim arises out of the same transaction
which forms the subject matter of the suit. It is argued that the learned trial
Court has erroneously treated the application as one for amendment of
pleadings and applied the test of due diligence under Order VI Rule 17 CPC,
whereas the application was for bringing a counter-claim under Order VIII
Rule 6-A CPC. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has
mechanically relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case (supra) , without considering the relevant
factors, including the reason for delay, the stage of proceedings, the nature
of the counter-claim and the absence of any prejudice to the respondent. It is,
thus, contended that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and
warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused
the case file.
12. The question which arises for consideration in the present
revision petition is whether the learned trial Court has committed any
illegality or material irregularity in dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner-defendant for taking his counter-claim on record at the stage when
the issues had already been framed and the plaintiff's evidence had
commenced.
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 5
13. It is not in dispute that the suit was instituted on 20.11.2023 and
the petitioner-defendant filed his written statement only on 04.08.2026, after
availing several opportunities and also moving an application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC, which was dismissed on 11.05.2026. The issues were
thereafter framed on 18.08.2026 and the matter was fixed for plaintiff's
evidence. The plaintiff had also tendered his examination-in-chief, though
his cross-examination was deferred at the request of the petitioner-
defendant. It was only thereafter that the petitioner moved the application
under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to bring the counter-claim on
record.
14. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
counter-claim could be entertained even after filing of the written statement,
cannot be disputed as an absolute proposition of law. However, the question
is not merely whether a counter-claim can be filed after the written
statement, but whether the same could be permitted at the stage at which it
was sought to be introduced in the present case. In this regard, the learned
trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case (supra) , wherein the Court,
while explaining the scope of Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC, laid down that
although a counter-claim may be permitted after filing of the written
statement, the discretion of the Court is required to be exercised judiciously,
keeping in view the period of delay, the reason therefor, the nature of the
claim, the stage of proceedings and the prejudice likely to be caused to the
opposite party. The Court further indicated that the outer limit for
entertaining a belated counter-claim is ordinarily the stage of framing of
issues.
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 6
15. In the present case, the petitioner-defendant had filed his written
statement on 04.08.2026, whereas the issues had already been framed on
18.08.2026. The plaintiff had also commenced his evidence and tendered his
examination-in-chief before the application seeking permission to bring the
counter-claim on record was moved. Thus, the application was not filed
merely after submission of the written statement, but after the issues had
been framed and the trial had commenced. The petitioner, therefore, cannot
claim the indulgence of the Court as a matter of right merely on the ground
that the plaintiff's cross-examination had not yet been concluded.
16. Another significant aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that
the petitioner-defendant was admittedly aware of the alleged excess payment
of Rs.50,000/- much prior to the filing of the application. In his written
statement dated 04.08.2026 itself, he had specifically pleaded that, apart
from the payments allegedly made towards discharge of his liability, another
sum of Rs.50,000/- had been transferred into the bank account of the
respondent-plaintiff on 23.12.2021. Thus, the plea that the petitioner came to
know about the alleged excess payment only while preparing for the cross-
examination of the plaintiff does not inspire confidence, particularly when
the said transaction had already been specifically referred to in his written
statement. Once the petitioner was conscious of the alleged excess payment
and the claim arising therefrom, there was no justifiable reason for him to
await commencement of the plaintiff's evidence before seeking to set up a
counter-claim. The explanation furnished for the delay, therefore, does not
establish any sufficient justification for entertaining the counter-claim at
such a belated stage.
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 7
17. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vijay Prakash Jarath vs. Tej
Prakash Jarath”, (2016) 11 SCC 800 , also does not advance his case in the
facts and circumstances herein. The said judgment was considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case (supra) , wherein the
principles governing entertainment of belated counter-claims were
subsequently explained by a larger Bench. The discretion to entertain a
counter-claim cannot be exercised mechanically merely because the
plaintiff's evidence has not been concluded. The facts of each case,
particularly the reason for delay and the stage at which the counter-claim is
sought to be introduced, have to be examined. In the present case, the
petitioner had knowledge of the alleged claim at the time of filing of the
written statement itself, yet did not seek to raise a counter-claim before
framing of issues.
18. The further contention that the learned trial Court has
erroneously treated the application as one for amendment of pleadings under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC, is also not sufficient to warrant interference with the
impugned order. Even if the application is examined independently under
Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC, the petitioner was required to satisfy the Court as
to why the counter-claim was not raised at the appropriate stage and why it
should be entertained after commencement of the trial. The mere fact that
the application was styled as one under Section 151 CPC would not dispense
with the requirement of satisfying the conditions governing entertainment of
a belated counter-claim.
19. The argument regarding absence of prejudice to the respondent-
plaintiff is also not convincing. Entertaining the counter-claim at this stage
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 8
would require the respondent-plaintiff to file a separate written statement
thereto, followed by consideration of the necessity of additional issues and
opportunity to lead evidence on the newly introduced claim. This would
enlarge the scope of the pending proceedings and cause further delay in
adjudication of the original suit. The object of introducing Order VIII Rule
6-A CPC is undoubtedly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, however, the
said provision cannot be employed in a manner that defeats the equally
important objective of expeditious disposal of pending litigation, particularly
when the defendant had knowledge of the claim at an earlier stage.
20. There is also substance in the observation of the learned trial
Court regarding limitation. The alleged excess payment of Rs.50,000/- is
stated to have been made on 23.12.2021, whereas the petitioner sought to
introduce the counter-claim only in 2026. The petitioner sought to explain
the delay by referring to Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, on the
ground that the alleged mistake came to his knowledge subsequently.
However, in view of the specific averment regarding the said payment in his
written statement dated 04.08.2026, the plea of subsequent discovery
requires scrutiny. In any event, the petitioner cannot claim that the alleged
transaction was altogether unknown to him before commencement of the
plaintiff's evidence. The question of limitation, therefore, cannot be brushed
aside merely on the basis of the explanation furnished in the application.
21. It is, thus, evident that the learned trial Court has considered the
relevant factual circumstances, the stage of the proceedings and the legal
principles governing the filing of counter-claims. Merely because another
view may be possible on the facts, the exercise of discretion by the learned
trial Court does not call for interference in exercise of supervisory
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-8370-2026 (O&M) 9
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No perversity,
material irregularity or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned
order warranting interference by this Court.
22. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition,
the same is hereby dismissed .
23. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the original suit.
24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
12.11.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANU
2026.11.13 12:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh