Counter-claims survive suit withdrawal and may encompass causes of action exceeding the scope of the original claim.

The petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 19/2023 for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding 3 Bighas of land (Schedule-T)

The respondent filed a written statement and a counter-claim seeking title and injunction over Schedules T, U, V, and W

On 19.09.2025, the petitioner withdrew the original suit with liberty to file afresh, but the Trial Court directed the counter-claim to proceed independently under Order VIII Rule 6A and 6D of the CPC

Subsequently, the respondent sought a temporary injunction to protect his possession, which was granted by the Trial Court on 29.01.2024

This order was affirmed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 01/2024 on 20.08.2024

The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the counter-claim could not encompass properties (Schedules U, V, and W) beyond the scope of the original suit

1. Whether a counter-claim remains maintainable and can include additional properties/causes of action after the withdrawal of the original suit

2. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts granting temporary injunction warrant interference under supervisory jurisdiction

The Court applied Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC, which stipulates that a counter-claim has the effect of a cross-suit and allows a defendant to raise any cause of action against the plaintiff accruing before or after the suit

It further relied on Order VIII Rule 6D of the CPC, which ensures that a counter-claim proceeds independently even if the original suit is discontinued or dismissed

The Court followed the precedent in Jag Mohan Chawla v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang (1996) 4 SCC 699, which establishes the wide amplitude and independent nature of counter-claims

Regarding injunctions, the Court applied the three-pronged test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury) from Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719

The principle of limited appellate interference in discretionary orders from Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727

The Court reasoned that under Order VIII Rule 6A and 6D, a counter-claim is a substantive, independent proceeding that survives the withdrawal of the main suit

It rejected the petitioner’s contention that the counter-claim was restricted to the 3 Bighas mentioned in the original suit, clarifying that a counter-claim is not strictly confined to the subject matter of the original claim so long as it involves a dispute between the same parties

The Court observed that the additional schedules (U, V, and W) were sufficiently connected to the overarching title dispute

On the merits of the injunction, the Court noted that both lower courts had recorded categorical findings of fact regarding the respondent’s possession and the existence of a triable issue of title

Under Article 227, the High Court’s role is supervisory; since the lower courts did not act arbitrarily or perversely, and correctly applied the settled parameters for interlocutory relief, no jurisdictional error was found

It held that a counter-claim possesses an independent character and can encompass a wider scope than the original suit, surviving even after the suit's withdrawal

The Court vacated any existing interim stay and directed the Trial Court to decide the counter-claim on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the injunction proceedings