CRP(MD)/2479/2026 of Kannan Vs Venkatesh on 9 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivaikuntam, Thoothukudi District, to take on file the counterclaim filed by the petitioner in Filing No.276, dated 02.04.2024, in O.S.No.192 of 2022.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.192 of 2022. Originally, the petitioner filed a counterclaim before the learned District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, on 20/04/2023. The said counterclaim was returned on 11/03/2024 on the ground that the valuation of the counterclaim exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court and that the same had to be presented before the competent Court having jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the said counterclaim before the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivaikuntam. The learned Subordinate Judge returned the same, observing that the provisions relating to the return of a plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC would apply only to a plaint and that the counterclaim could not be received in the manner in which it was presented. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a counterclaim is to be treated as a plaint and therefore, once the counterclaim was returned by the learned District Munsif on the ground of want of pecuniary jurisdiction, the same ought to have been taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge and numbered as a separate suit.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in C.R.P.(PD)No.173 of 2025, dated 18.02.2025, in Velu and 5 others v. Palanivelu and others, wherein this Court, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyender and others v. Saroja and others, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 154, held that a counterclaim can be independently entertained by the Court, provided that it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted. If the counterclaim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the original Court, the same has to be returned for presentation before the Court having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. This Court further directed the jurisdictional Court to consider the returned counterclaim as a suit and number the same.

5. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of Order VIII Rule 6A CPC and observed that a counterclaim shall be treated as a plaint and shall be governed by the rules applicable to plaints. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also explained that the legislative intent behind the provisions relating to counterclaims is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, subject to the conditions prescribed under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

7. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to Order VIII Rule 6A CPC. Under Order VIII Rule 6A(1) CPC, a defendant may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up by way of counterclaim against the claim of the plaintiff any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivery of his defence has expired. Under Order VIII Rule 6A(4) CPC, a counterclaim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counterclaim, and shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra (supra) has reiterated that a counterclaim is to be treated as a plaint and is governed by the rules applicable to plaints. At the same time, a counterclaim is a procedural mechanism incorporated into the suit for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and is subject to the conditions prescribed under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC.

9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner originally filed the counterclaim before the learned District Munsif, Srivaikuntam. However, the said Court found that the valuation of the counterclaim exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore, returned the counterclaim for presentation before the competent Court.

10. Once the counterclaim was returned on the ground of want of pecuniary jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot insist that the very same document should necessarily be received and proceeded with as a counterclaim in the original suit. The effect of the return is that the claim has to be presented before the competent Court having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction and dealt with in accordance with law.

11. Though Order VIII Rule 6A(4) CPC provides that a counterclaim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints, such treatment does not dispense with the requirements applicable to the institution of a suit before the competent Court. The claim has to be presented before the competent Court in the appropriate form, complying with the requirements relating to the cause title, valuation, payment of requisite court fee and other particulars and procedural requirements applicable to a plaint. Consequently, when the claim is presented before the competent Court as an independent suit, the original plaintiff would become the defendant in such proceedings, subject to the nature of the relief claimed and the applicable provisions of law. The fact that the claim was originally styled as a counterclaim in the earlier suit would not, by itself, compel the competent Court to treat the same as a counterclaim in the original suit after it has been returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

12. The decision of this Court in Velu and 5 others v. Palanivelu and others (supra) also makes the position clear. In the said decision, this Court, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyender and others v. Saroja and others, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 154, held that if the counterclaim falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court where the suit is instituted, it can be proceeded with in the same suit. However, if the counterclaim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the original Court, the same has to be returned for presentation before the Court having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. The jurisdictional Court was thereafter directed to consider the counterclaim as a suit and number the same. Therefore, the principle emerging from the above decisions is that a counterclaim exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in which the original suit is pending cannot be continued as a counterclaim in the said suit. It has to be presented before the competent Court having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. On such presentation, the competent Court has to examine the claim in accordance with law and, if the requirements of a plaint are satisfied, deal with it as an independent suit.

13. In this regard, it is also relevant to note that Order VIII Rule 6A(1) CPC contemplates that the cause of action for a counterclaim may accrue, either before or after the filing of the suit, provided that, in the case of a cause of action accruing after the institution of the suit, it must accrue before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivery of such defence has expired. The said statutory requirement cannot be overlooked merely because the counterclaim is subsequently sought to be presented before another Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

14. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner does not warrant a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge to mechanically take the very same counterclaim on file in the pending suit. On the contrary, the said decisions make it clear that, where the counterclaim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the original Court, the claim has to be presented before the competent jurisdictional Court and dealt with in accordance with the procedure applicable to a suit.

15. In the present case, the petitioner has already been informed that the counterclaim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif. Therefore, the proper course available to the petitioner is to present the claim before the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivaikuntam, as an independent suit, after complying with all the requirements applicable to the institution of a suit, including proper valuation, payment of requisite court fee and necessary pleadings. The competent Court shall thereafter consider the maintainability of the claim, including whether the cause of action pleaded therein satisfies the requirements of Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, in accordance with law.

16. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no direction can be issued to the learned Subordinate Judge to take the counterclaim on file as a counterclaim in O.S.No.192 of 2022. However, the petitioner is at liberty to present the said claim before the competent Court in accordance with law. If the petitioner presents the claim as a plaint, the learned jurisdictional Court shall consider the same in accordance with law, without rejecting it merely on the ground that it was originally filed as a counterclaim in O.S.No.192 of 2022.

17. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above liberty. The Registry is directed to return the original impugned petition to the petitioner, after retaining copy of the same, so as to present the same before the concerned jurisdictional Court. No costs. 09.09.2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,

1. The Subordinate Judge, Srivaikuntram, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.POORNIMA, J. er

CRP(MD)No.2479 of 2026 09/09/2026