Judgment interpretation

Seek professional services of the lawyer engaged / paid by you.

Yes, Rule 6A does not provide for counter-claim against a co-defendant.

Thanks Sir for your valuable feedback. There are couple of judgments in which counterclaim is accepted by the court against co-defendants in partition suit where third party (Purchaser) was also involved even after this order. This is really confusing. Can you provide any latest citation of SC which says it can not be filed again  co-defendants in any case.

Which are those judgments? Can you furnish the details.

One of the Judgment from Madras HC and Other is from HC of Karnataka Dharwad Bench

1. A.V.Murugan Vs..K.Maheswari   C.R.P.(MD).No.42 of 2012 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174454553/

2. R.S.A. No. 5669/200

https://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/147443/1/RSA5669-09-07-12-2016.pdf

These are the two judgments which has accepted the counterclaim against co-defendants also.

Thanks and Regards,

The present decision is that of the Supreme Court. So, what is the issue in confusion?:

The decision of Madras High Court is after the order of Supreme Court I have shared. That is the confusion now which will be applicable. I am not sure the SC decision is in the knowledge of  Madras High Court while taking this decision.

Proper and Necessary parties can be added as defendants. 

Order 8 Rule 6A(4) gives that right to treat counter claim as a new case.

But if improper/unnecessary parties added, that can't be tenable.