P&H HC Upholds Rejection Of Rs 50,000 Excess-Payment Counterclaim Sought After Plaintiff’s Evidence Began, Though Defendant Had Already Pleaded The Payment

The petitioner-defendant filed his written statement on 4 August 2026, pleading, among other things, that he had paid the respondent-plaintiff a total of ₹7,50,000, including an alleged transfer of ₹50,000 on 23 December 2021.

After issues were framed on 18 August 2026 and the plaintiff had tendered his examination-in-chief, the petitioner applied under Section 151 CPC to bring a counter-claim on record.

The trial Court dismissed the application, finding it belated and noting the petitioner’s prior knowledge of the alleged payment; it also considered the claim time-barred.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC permits a defendant to raise a counter-claim, including in appropriate cases after filing the written statement, but its late introduction is discretionary and must be assessed by reference to the delay, its explanation, the nature of the claim, the stage of proceedings, and potential prejudice to the plaintiff; ordinarily, the stage of framing issues is the outer limit for entertaining a belated counter-claim (*Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri*, (2020) 2 SCC 394).

The discretion is not exercised mechanically merely because the plaintiff’s evidence is incomplete; the facts of the particular case must be considered.

The Court also considered Section 151 CPC, Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

It noted that *Vijay Prakash Jarath v. Tej Prakash Jarath*, (2016) 11 SCC 800, had been considered in *Ashok Kumar Kalra*.

Although a counter-claim may in law be permitted after the written statement, the petitioner sought to introduce this one after issues had been framed and the plaintiff’s evidence had commenced.

The petitioner had pleaded the alleged ₹50,000 payment in his written statement, demonstrating prior knowledge of the transaction, and gave no sufficient reason for waiting until that stage to seek a counter-claim.

Permitting it would require a response, potentially additional issues and evidence, and would enlarge and delay the proceedings.

The petitioner’s reliance on Section 17 of the Limitation Act did not overcome the concern about prior knowledge, and the Court found no basis to interfere with the trial Court’s discretionary decision under Article 227.

The revision petition was dismissed; the Court clarified that its observations did not express an opinion on the merits of the original suit, and disposed of any pending applications.