### Counter-claim Against Co-defendants Is Maintainable in Partition Suits Since Parties Hold Interchangeable Status

The plaintiffs (Respondents 1–7) filed a civil suit for partition, declaration, and permanent injunction regarding a residential property in Chomu, Jaipur, based on a family settlement dated 06.02.1994.

Defendants No. 1, 3, and 4 filed a written statement admitting the joint family nature of the property and submitted a counter-claim for partition of their respective shares based on the same settlement.

Petitioners (Defendants No. 2 and 5–11) contested the suit, alleging the settlement document was forged.

In 2014, the Petitioners moved an application to strike out the counter-claim, which was dismissed on 26.05.2015.

After the plaintiffs' evidence concluded, the Petitioners filed a second application (Annx. 11) seeking the same relief—striking out the counter-claim and related evidence—arguing a defendant cannot file a counter-claim against a co-defendant.

The trial court dismissed this second application on 28.03.2026, leading to this writ petition.

Whether in a suit for partition, a defendant can set up a counter-claim against a co-defendant?

Whether the order dated 26.05.2015 operates as res judicata against the petitioners, preventing them from re-agitating the same issue at a subsequent stage of the same suit?

The Court applied Order VIII Rule 6-A of the CPC, which allows a defendant to set up a counter-claim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court relied on Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar [(2006) 12 SCC 734], which generally prohibits counter-claims directed solely against co-defendants, but distinguished it using the principle that in partition suits,ทุก parties are deemed "suing persons" and their status is interchangeable, as held in A. Krishna Shenoy v. Ganga Devi G. [2023] and A. Mohamed Sulaiman v. A. Ameena Beevi.

Regarding the second issue, the Court applied the doctrine of "interlocutory res judicata" based on Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [AIR 1960 SC 941] and B.S. Lalitha v. Bhuvanesh [2026 SCC Online SC 860], which mandates that a decision at one stage of litigation is binding on the parties in subsequent stages of the same proceeding.

Regarding the first issue, the Court reasoned that while a counter-claim is typically directed against the plaintiff, the unique nature of partition suits—where defendants effectively seek the same relief as plaintiffs—allows for such claims against co-defendants.

It noted that the petitioners’ defense against both the main claim and the counter-claim was identical (denial of the settlement document), and thus resolving them together aligns with the legislative intent to prevent multiple trials.

Regarding the second issue, the Court found that the petitioners had already challenged the maintainability of the counter-claim in 2014 and lost via an order dated 26.05.2015.

Since that order reached finality and was decided on merits, the petitioners were legally barred from filing a second application for the same relief at the evidence stage under the principle of interlocutory res judicata.

The trial court's order dated 28.03.2026 was upheld.