CR-5482-2025(O&M) CR-5492-2025 (O&M) 123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. CR-5482- Gurmeet Bharti @ Gurmeet Bharthi Piari Devi 2. CR-5492- Gurmeet Bharti @ Gurmeet Bharthi Piari Devi CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta MANDEEP PANNU 1. This common order shall dispose o petitions filed against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby the application dated 16.08.2024 filed by the present petitioner for rejection of the counter been dismissed. Brief Facts 2. The petitioner injunction restraining the defendant interfering in his peaceful possession of the shop in dispute. (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Decided on : -2025 (O&M) Gurmeet Bharti @ Gurmeet Bharthi VERSUS -2025 (O&M) Gurmeet Bharti @ Gurmeet Bharthi VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. This common order shall dispose o filed against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby the application dated 16.08.2024 filed by the present petitioner for rejection of the counter-claim preferred by the respondent has The petitioner–plaintiff Gurmeet Bharti instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant–respondent Pyari Devi and her agents from interfering in his peaceful possession of the shop in dispute. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :- 19.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU the petitioner. This common order shall dispose off above-numbered two revision filed against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby the application dated 16.08.2024 filed by the claim preferred by the respondent has plaintiff Gurmeet Bharti instituted a suit for permanent respondent Pyari Devi and her agents from interfering in his peaceful possession of the shop in dispute. It was pleaded that t - revision filed against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby the application dated 16.08.2024 filed by the claim preferred by the respondent has plaintiff Gurmeet Bharti instituted a suit for permanent respondent Pyari Devi and her agents from It was pleaded that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5482-2025(O&M) CR-5492-2025 (O&M) shop in question was taken on rent by the petitioner in October 2011 at a monthly rent of ₹7,000, under an oral tenancy. The respondent further executed a registered mortgage deed dated 18.10.2011 in favour of the petitioner and his brother Kamal Bharti. The petitioner was carrying on business in the disputed shop unde and style of Bharti K paying monthly rent of issued. One electricity connection in the shop stands in the name of Ramesh Kumar (brother-in-law of the respondent) and the petitioner has been regularly paying the electricity charges. per month to ₹17,000, though the petitioner expressed willingness to increase it up to ₹10,000. Instead of accepting the rent, the respondent allegedly threatened to dispossess the petitioner forcibly. of the property has not been redeemed, and therefore the petitioner continues to have an independent right to remain in possession as a tenant. 3. The respondent filed a written statement taking preliminary objections, inter alia, that the petitioner has no locus signed or accepted the mortgage deed dated 18.10.2011. It was alleged that the suit has been filed in collusion with Kamal Bharti, brother of the petitioner. contended that Kamal Bharti, being the signato received a sum of and hence the present claim is frivolous and intended to grab the property of a widow. The respondent further alleged theft of article oral tenancy at repaid, the possession of the shop was required to be returned to the respondent. (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) shop in question was taken on rent by the petitioner in October 2011 at a monthly rent ₹7,000, under an oral tenancy. The respondent further executed a registered mortgage deed dated 18.10.2011 in favour of the petitioner and his brother Kamal The petitioner was carrying on business in the disputed shop unde and style of Bharti Karyana Store, being its sole proprietor. paying monthly rent of ₹7,000 in cash to the respondent, though no rent receipts were d. One electricity connection in the shop stands in the name of Ramesh Kumar law of the respondent) and the petitioner has been regularly paying the electricity charges. The respondent was attempting to enhance the rent from ₹17,000, though the petitioner expressed willingness to increase it up to ₹10,000. Instead of accepting the rent, the respondent allegedly threatened to dispossess the petitioner forcibly. It was further pleaded that the mortgage in respect y has not been redeemed, and therefore the petitioner continues to have an independent right to remain in possession as a tenant. The respondent filed a written statement taking preliminary objections, inter alia, that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present suit, as he never signed or accepted the mortgage deed dated 18.10.2011. It was alleged that the suit has been filed in collusion with Kamal Bharti, brother of the petitioner. contended that Kamal Bharti, being the signatory of the mortgage deed, has already received a sum of ₹60,000 in full and final settlement towards vacation of the shop, and hence the present claim is frivolous and intended to grab the property of a widow. The respondent further alleged theft of articles from the suit property and denied any oral tenancy at ₹7,000 per month. As per the mortgage deed, once ₹60,000 was repaid, the possession of the shop was required to be returned to the respondent. -2- shop in question was taken on rent by the petitioner in October 2011 at a monthly rent ₹7,000, under an oral tenancy. The respondent further executed a registered mortgage deed dated 18.10.2011 in favour of the petitioner and his brother Kamal The petitioner was carrying on business in the disputed shop under the name aryana Store, being its sole proprietor. The petitioner has been ₹7,000 in cash to the respondent, though no rent receipts were d. One electricity connection in the shop stands in the name of Ramesh Kumar law of the respondent) and the petitioner has been regularly paying the The respondent was attempting to enhance the rent from ₹7,000 ₹17,000, though the petitioner expressed willingness to increase it up to ₹10,000. Instead of accepting the rent, the respondent allegedly threatened to It was further pleaded that the mortgage in respect y has not been redeemed, and therefore the petitioner continues to have an independent right to remain in possession as a tenant. The respondent filed a written statement taking preliminary objections, standi to file the present suit, as he never signed or accepted the mortgage deed dated 18.10.2011. It was alleged that the suit has been filed in collusion with Kamal Bharti, brother of the petitioner. It was ry of the mortgage deed, has already ₹60,000 in full and final settlement towards vacation of the shop, and hence the present claim is frivolous and intended to grab the property of a widow. s from the suit property and denied any ₹7,000 per month. As per the mortgage deed, once ₹60,000 was repaid, the possession of the shop was required to be returned to the respondent. - shop in question was taken on rent by the petitioner in October 2011 at a monthly rent ₹7,000, under an oral tenancy. The respondent further executed a registered mortgage deed dated 18.10.2011 in favour of the petitioner and his brother Kamal r the name The petitioner has been ₹7,000 in cash to the respondent, though no rent receipts were d. One electricity connection in the shop stands in the name of Ramesh Kumar law of the respondent) and the petitioner has been regularly paying the ₹7,000 ₹17,000, though the petitioner expressed willingness to increase it up to ₹10,000. Instead of accepting the rent, the respondent allegedly threatened to It was further pleaded that the mortgage in respect y has not been redeemed, and therefore the petitioner continues to have The respondent filed a written statement taking preliminary objections, standi to file the present suit, as he never signed or accepted the mortgage deed dated 18.10.2011. It was alleged that the suit was ry of the mortgage deed, has already ₹60,000 in full and final settlement towards vacation of the shop, and hence the present claim is frivolous and intended to grab the property of a widow. s from the suit property and denied any ₹7,000 per month. As per the mortgage deed, once ₹60,000 was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5482-2025(O&M) CR-5492-2025 (O&M) 4. Along with the written statement, the respondent also claim against Gurmeet Bharti and Kamal Bharti, seeking possession of the shop and a direction to them to hand over the same, asserting that the amount of already been repaid to Kamal Bharti. filed by the petitioner in respect of the same property with varying descriptions concerning the shop and another concerning the entire building fide intention. Reliance was placed on the terms of the mortgage deed for s possession and damages. 5. The petitioner moved an application dated 16.08.2024 for dismissal of the counter-claim, inter alia, on the ground that the counter maintainable as per Order 8 Rule 6 plaintiff but also against Kamal Bharti, who was not a party to the original suit. urged that a counter party to the suit, and hence the counter trial Court, however, vide order dated 23.07.2025, dismissed the said application rejection of counter 6. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 8. It is relevant to mention here provisions of Order VIII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to a set-off, to file a counter accruing either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence. (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Along with the written statement, the respondent also claim against Gurmeet Bharti and Kamal Bharti, seeking possession of the shop and a direction to them to hand over the same, asserting that the amount of already been repaid to Kamal Bharti. It was also alleged that two separat filed by the petitioner in respect of the same property with varying descriptions concerning the shop and another concerning the entire building fide intention. Reliance was placed on the terms of the mortgage deed for s possession and damages. The petitioner moved an application dated 16.08.2024 for dismissal of claim, inter alia, on the ground that the counter maintainable as per Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, since it was filed not only again plaintiff but also against Kamal Bharti, who was not a party to the original suit. urged that a counter-claim cannot be directed against a person who is not already a party to the suit, and hence the counter-claim was liable to be rejected. trial Court, however, vide order dated 23.07.2025, dismissed the said application rejection of counter-claim. Hence, the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the t is relevant to mention here provisions of Order VIII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) off, to file a counter-claim against the plaintiff in respect of a cause of action g either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence. A counter-claim is in substance a cross -3- Along with the written statement, the respondent also filed a counter claim against Gurmeet Bharti and Kamal Bharti, seeking possession of the shop and a direction to them to hand over the same, asserting that the amount of ₹60,000 had It was also alleged that two separate suits were filed by the petitioner in respect of the same property with varying descriptions— concerning the shop and another concerning the entire building—demonstrating mala fide intention. Reliance was placed on the terms of the mortgage deed for seeking The petitioner moved an application dated 16.08.2024 for dismissal of claim, inter alia, on the ground that the counter-claim was not A CPC, since it was filed not only against the plaintiff but also against Kamal Bharti, who was not a party to the original suit. It was claim cannot be directed against a person who is not already a claim was liable to be rejected. The learned trial Court, however, vide order dated 23.07.2025, dismissed the said application I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the t is relevant to mention here provisions of Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). It permits a defendant, in addition claim against the plaintiff in respect of a cause of action g either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has claim is in substance a cross-suit by the defendant - filed a counter- claim against Gurmeet Bharti and Kamal Bharti, seeking possession of the shop and a ₹60,000 had e suits were —one demonstrating mala eeking The petitioner moved an application dated 16.08.2024 for dismissal of claim was not st the It was claim cannot be directed against a person who is not already a The learned for I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the of the permits a defendant, in addition claim against the plaintiff in respect of a cause of action g either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has suit by the defendant TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5482-2025(O&M) CR-5492-2025 (O&M) against the plaintiff. be directed only against the plaintiff(s) of the suit. 9. This Court, in case of C.R No.6465 of 2013, decided on 25.10.2013 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satsang [1996(2) R.R.R 623 “Order 8 Rule 6 defendant against the plaintiff. The expression against the plaintiff used in the aforesaid provision is highly significant for the purpose of this revision petition. The aforesaid expre claim has to be made against the plaintiff only and not against the third party. Consequently, a third person cannot be added as a new party to the suit for adjudicating counter confine supported by observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Chawla (supra), can also claim in the counter Thus, relief in the counter not against the third person.” 10. In view of the law laid down further relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c Chawla (supra) to the original suit as plaintiff. enlarge the scope of the (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) against the plaintiff. Therefore, the necessary condition is that the counter rected only against the plaintiff(s) of the suit. This Court, in case of Kehar Singh Vs. Hukam Singh And Another C.R No.6465 of 2013, decided on 25.10.2013 relying upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jag Mohan Chawla Vs. D Satsang [1996(2) R.R.R 623], has held as under:- Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC stipulates that counter defendant against the plaintiff. The expression against the plaintiff used in the aforesaid provision is highly significant for the purpose of this revision petition. The aforesaid expre claim has to be made against the plaintiff only and not against the third party. Consequently, a third person cannot be added as a new party to the suit for adjudicating counter-claim because counter confined against the plaintiff only. In this view of the matter, I am supported by observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Chawla (supra), wherein also it has been held that defendant can also claim in the counter-claim injunction ‘against Thus, relief in the counter-claim can be claimed against the plaintiff and not against the third person.” In view of the law laid down in Kehar Singh’s case further relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c Chawla (supra) a counter-claim cannot be filed against to the original suit as plaintiff. The defendant cannot, by way of counter enlarge the scope of the lis by bringing in a third party against whom -4- Therefore, the necessary condition is that the counter-claim must rected only against the plaintiff(s) of the suit. Kehar Singh Vs. Hukam Singh And Another relying upon judgment passed by the Jag Mohan Chawla Vs. Dera Radha Swami - A CPC stipulates that counter-claim can be set up by defendant against the plaintiff. The expression against the plaintiff used in the aforesaid provision is highly significant for the purpose of this revision petition. The aforesaid expression would depict that counter claim has to be made against the plaintiff only and not against the third party. Consequently, a third person cannot be added as a new party to claim because counter-claim has to be d against the plaintiff only. In this view of the matter, I am supported by observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jag wherein also it has been held that defendant claim injunction ‘against the plaintiff’. claim can be claimed against the plaintiff and Kehar Singh’s case (supra), which further relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jag Mohan claim cannot be filed against third party who is not a party The defendant cannot, by way of counter-claim, by bringing in a third party against whom the plaintiff - claim must Kehar Singh Vs. Hukam Singh And Another, relying upon judgment passed by the era Radha Swami claim can be set up by defendant against the plaintiff. The expression against the plaintiff used in the aforesaid provision is highly significant for the purpose of this ssion would depict that counter- claim has to be made against the plaintiff only and not against the third party. Consequently, a third person cannot be added as a new party to claim has to be d against the plaintiff only. In this view of the matter, I am Jag wherein also it has been held that defendant the plaintiff’. claim can be claimed against the plaintiff and which Jag Mohan who is not a party claim, the plaintiff TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5482-2025(O&M) CR-5492-2025 (O&M) himself never sought any relief. against such a third party, his proper remedy is to file a separate suit. 11. Thus, where party, the law does not require that the entire counter proper course is to strike out the counter it as maintainable, if otherwise in order, against the plaintiff(s). consistently held that mis counter-claim. The portion of relief claimed against a non rejected, but the counter maintainable. 12. The impunged order dismissing the application dated 16.08.2024 for rejection of the counter same is rejected qua stranger (non is treated as maintainable. 13. With the above allowed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 19, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/ Whether reportable (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) himself never sought any relief. If a defendant has an independent cause of action against such a third party, his proper remedy is to file a separate suit. Thus, where a counter-claim is filed against bo he law does not require that the entire counter proper course is to strike out the counter-claim only against the non it as maintainable, if otherwise in order, against the plaintiff(s). istently held that mis-joinder of parties does not necessarily vitiate the entire claim. The portion of relief claimed against a non rejected, but the counter-claim may proceed against the plaintiff to the extent it is The impunged order dismissing the application dated 16.08.2024 for rejection of the counter-claim preferred by respondent is hereby modified and the same is rejected qua stranger (non-plaintiff-Kamal Bharti is treated as maintainable. With the above-said observation, both the revision petitions are partly Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- If a defendant has an independent cause of action against such a third party, his proper remedy is to file a separate suit. claim is filed against both the plaintiff and a third he law does not require that the entire counter-claim must be rejected. The claim only against the non-plaintiff and treat it as maintainable, if otherwise in order, against the plaintiff(s). Courts have joinder of parties does not necessarily vitiate the entire claim. The portion of relief claimed against a non-party can be ignored or claim may proceed against the plaintiff to the extent it is The impunged order dismissing the application dated 16.08.2024 for by respondent is hereby modified and the Kamal Bharti) and qua plaintiff, the same said observation, both the revision petitions are partly Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Yes/No : Yes/No - If a defendant has an independent cause of action third The plaintiff and treat Courts have joinder of parties does not necessarily vitiate the entire party can be ignored or claim may proceed against the plaintiff to the extent it is The impunged order dismissing the application dated 16.08.2024 for by respondent is hereby modified and the same said observation, both the revision petitions are partly TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document