CPC | Counter Claim In A Suit Need Not Be Headed By Cause Title: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no stipulation under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or the Civil Rules of Practice of the State that counter-claims should be headed by a cause title. Justice C.S Dias held so after examining Order VII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC and Rules 11 and 15 of the Civil Rules."Undoubtedly, a counter claim is a subsequent pleading as...
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no stipulation under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or the Civil Rules of Practice of the State that counter-claims should be headed by a cause title.
Justice C.S Dias held so after examining Order VII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC and Rules 11 and 15 of the Civil Rules.
"Undoubtedly, a counter claim is a subsequent pleading as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, there is no legal stipulation that a counter-claim should be headed by a cause title."
The petitioner was one of the defendants in a suit before a Munsiff court seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain him from trespassing into a temple.
The petitioner and other defendants in the suit raised a counter-claim. They came to know from the daily status report that the trial court had partly decreed the suit and counter-claim.
When the petitioner applied for the judgment and decree, his counsel was served with a notice informing him that the office could not do so in the absence of the cause title in the counter-claim.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to correct the cause title in the counter-claim, and this was opposed by one of the respondents herein.
The trial court did not issue an order on the petitioner's application or pass judgment on the matter. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay, he approached the High Court.
When the matter was taken up initially, the Judge had directed the Registry to call for a report from the Munsiff court to state why the judgment and decree in the suit were not issued to the petitioner.
The trial court responded that the judgment in the suit and the counter-claim was pronounced in April 2021 but due to the absence of the cause title, it was not possible for the office to prepare the judgment and decree.
The Judge went through the relevant provisions of the CPC and the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala and found that only a plaint or original petition has to be headed with a cause title,
"Order VII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code and Rules 11 and 15 of the Civil Rules of Practice, explicitly show that only a plaint or an original petition that needs to be headed with a cause title as in Form No.1, and the full name, age, residence and address and description of each party needs to be set out in the beginning of the plaint, original OP(C) NO.1600 OF 2021 11 petition or memorandum of appeal as in Form No.5, and further that the above said details need not be repeated in the subsequent proceedings in the same suit, appeal or matter."
Since a counterclaim is a subsequent pleading under Order VIII Rule 9, Justice Dias held that there is no legal stipulation that a counter-claim should be headed by the cause title.
It was also
"The stand of the court below that the judgment and decree in the suit and the counter-claim will be issued only on the petitioner incorporating a cause title is unwarranted."
As such, the notice issued by the trial court was set aside finding it to be wrong and against CPC and the Civil Rules of Practice. The Court thereby allowed the petition and directed the trial court to release the judgment and decree in the suit to the petitioner.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates SK Adhithyan and Keerthi S Jyothi in the matter.
Case Title: Bijoy v. Gopinathan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 328