1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioners, who were original defendants are assailing order dated 19.09.2025 passed below Exh.93 thereby refusing to register the counter claim.

3. The respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and the petitioners are original defendant no.1 to 4. The respondent no.2 is the original defendant no.5. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 are the proposed defendants. The parties are litigating in R.C.S. No. 655 of 2023 for the relief of declaration and injunction. The relationship between the parties is not disputed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued as to how the counter claim preferred by them deserves to be registered and the reliefs are within limitation. It is urged that the counter claim was filed before settlement of the issues and, therefore, its rejection is error of jurisdiction. It is further urged that the counter claim pertains to the subject matter and the parties in the suit. It is urged that in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, it should have been accepted and dealt with during course of trial. It is further submitted that it would be open for the respondents – plaintiffs to take recourse to Order XII Rule 11 of the CPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon following judgments :-

                    (i) A.V. Murugan vs. K. Maheshwari & Ors. (2019) SSC Online Mad.39139.

                    (ii) Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr. vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 699.

                    (iii) Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 394.

                    (iv) Punnakkal Suresh vs. Saraswathi (2018) SCC Online Ker. 3494.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Chetan Patil for respondent no.1 vehemently repelled the submissions. It is submitted that counter claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. The cause of action of the reliefs in the counter claim are besides the properties and parties involved in the suit. The counter claim is liable to be rejected at the threshold because it is against Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. It is urged that prejudice would be caused to the respondents - plaintiffs if such a counter claim is accepted and entertained.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Ashokkumar Kalara (supra).

8. Having heard both sides at length, what emerges from the record is that R.C.S. No.655 of 2023 was filed on 11.07.2023. The petitioners filed Written Statements on 03.10.2023 and 21.09.2023. Application Exh.93 along with counter claim was filed on 26.11.2024, before settlement of issues.

9. The petitioners solicited permission to file or register counter claim vide their Application Exh.93. It was contested by the respondents – plaintiffs. The rival submissions of the parties which are in tune of the submissions made before this Court were dealt with by the trial Court and the Application was rejected by the impugned order. The whole exercise of seeking permission to file counter claim and its refusal is bereft of legal sanction. There is no provision in Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC for soliciting any permission to register the counter claim.

10. A careful perusal of Order VIII Rule 6-A of the CPC shows that a counter-claim is in the nature of a plaint. It’s nature and the scope is prescribed under Rule 6 of Order VIII. As per Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6A, if the counter claim is to be treated as a plaint and rules applicable to plaint are made applicable to it then there is no necessity to secure any permission for registering it. No permission is required for filing plaint even if it is barred by limitation, untenable or against any statutory provision.

11. By implication of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6A of Order VIII, Order VII Rule 11 would be applicable to counter claim also. It would be open for the respondents - plaintiffs to claim for rejection of counter claim by filing appropriate Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC so that the counter claim which is barred by time or any provision of law or lacking cause of action, would be nipped in its bud. The time and energy can be saved by resorting to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Such course has not been undertaken in the present case. It is open for the respondents – plaintiffs to take recourse to Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C of CPC.

12. The petitioners unnecessarily indulged in filing Application Exh.93 and invited contest as well as impugned order. The entire exercise is without jurisdiction. The rival submissions of the counsel advanced before this Court can be dealt with if the Application under Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C of CPC is filed before the trial Court. I, therefore, refrain from commenting on the submissions of the parties on merits, which are specifically kept open.

13. The Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the parties to take recourse to Order VII Rule 11 or Order VIII Rule 6C of the CPC. All contentions of the parties are kept open which should be decided on merits. Needless to state that the counter claim shall stand registered.

14. The learned counsel for the respondents requests this Court to suspend the order passed today, as his clients want to approach the Apex Court.

15. The request is objected by the petitioners.

16. I have already observed in the judgment and order that the counter claim gets registered no sooner than it is filed and there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to seek permission for registration. The aggrieved party has remedies provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. No case is made out for suspending the judgment and order pronounced. The request is rejected.