INTERNAL ASSESSMENT-II

CASE STUDIES
1. Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. 
2. Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v The Central Bank of India

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Dr. Anita Ladha Kohina Jain
Associate Professor 2019BALLB088
JLU School of Law JLU04660
2019-2024 Batch
BA.LLB(Hons.)

CASE STUDY-1
1
ASHOK KUMAR KALRA v. WING CDR. SURENDRA
AGNIHOTRI & ORS. 

(Hon’ble Chief Justice of India looked into the matter and gave the final judgment on the basis
of merit of the case) 
Bench: Justice N.V. Ramana Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Justice Ajay Rastogi 
Citation: (2020) 2 SCC 394 
Petitioner: Ashok Kumar Kalra
 Respondent: Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri &Ors. 
Statutes / Constitution Involved: Code of Civil Procedure
Important Sections/ Articles: Order VII Rule 6 of CPC

ABSTRACT
According  to Order VIII Rule 6A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 there is no bar on filing
counterclaims after filing written statements as per Order VIII Rule 6A, Code of Civil Procedure
1908 Supreme Court held in the case. Procedural justice questions are notably constant in the life of
Common Law Justice. However it is practically possible to achieve the perfect procedural system in
Court and also it can be affordable but still we have to face delay in justice, time and accuracy of
solving the case is very slow till now it is hoped that standards for meaningful participation will be
improved So that nobody’s time is wasted . The present case arises before the supreme court for the
interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the filing of
counterclaim by a defendant in a suit. Which previously Digitally signed by two Jugged Bench of this
court. The Supreme Court held that a court has power to exercise its discretion and allow it to fill the
counterclaim after the written statement till the issues are framed in the trial stage. 
Keywords: Justice, Written Statement, Counterclaim, Code of Civil Procedure

INTRODUCTION
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnhotri held that
Order VIII Rule 6 a of CPC 1 which said that when the setoff given in written statement. The Court
expressed that the rule to put an embargo on submitting a counterclaim after written assertion has
been removed. But this does not means that counterclaim can be filled at any time after filling of

1
Order VIII Rule 6 a of Civil Procedure Court, 1908

2
written statement by the defendant.  Even though the limitation length which is three days has not
elapsed. There should be no misuse of right made by defendant.
FACTS: 
 A conflict arose between Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the overall performance of
settlement to sale and the respondent filed the suit for specific performance against the
petitioner.
 The Petitioner filled an written statement on 2-12-2008 and counterclaim in the identical suit
on 12-03-2009.
 The trail court rejected the objection of petitioner, regarding submitting of the counterclaim
after filing of the written statement while issues are framed.
 The High Court also quashed the counterclaim and allowed the same when petitioner
challenged the order before this court.
 The petitioner herein approached the division bench of the Supreme Court after the order of
the High Court which referred the matter to a three Judge Bench. 
 The Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court gave consent to the decision of the trail court and
asked to place an immediate Special Leave Petition for attaining the orders from the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India, for considering the case on the basis of its Merits and give solution this
matter.
ISSUES:
 Whether Order VIII Rule 6 of the CPC is compulsory to follow the rule of an embargo on
filing the counterclaim after filling the written statement?
 If the answer of aforementioned question is negative, then what is the limitation on filing the
counterclaim after the written statement is filled?

 ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER
 The intention behind making the amendment in Rule 6A of Order VIII is to avoid multiplicity
of proceedings for filing the counterclaim so that time of court can be saved and justice
would serve quickly and avoid the inconvenience faced by the parties.
 If permitting the counterclaim would lead to extension of the trail and cause delay in suit, the
Court can make use of its discretion by not allowing the filing of counterclaim, but for
serving the justice the rules should not be misinterpreted that ultimately results in failure of
justice.

3
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
 The interpretation, the language of the statute and the scheme of the Order, indicates that the
written statement must consist of a counterclaim.
 Before the filing of the written statement the cause of action regarding the counterclaim must
be aroused.
 Depending upon the language of Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC, a defendant can assert to set off
to be a part of the written statement; same rules should be applied to the filling of a
counterclaim.

JUDGEMENT:

 The Three Judged Bench observed that the court firstly has to consider the outer limit for
filing the counterclaim, which is mention till the issues are framed.
 The hon’ble Supreme Court referred the case Mahendra Kumar and Anr. v. Madhya Pradesh
and Ors.2which stipulates that under Rule 6A is that a counterclaim can be filed after filing
the written statement, provided that cause of action had aroused to the defendant before
defendant delivers his defense 
 The Court also pointed out some exceptional circumstances when date can extended for filing
the counterclaim, according to Article 113 of limitation Act, 1963 3, Article 113 which
provides the problem period is 3 years from the date of the appropriate claim, when no other
places are provided in the list during the difficult period. On the basis of this the court
believes that the decision of trail court and the High Court were discovered wrong to dismiss
the counterclaim.
 With regard to issue the court said that according to Rule 6A of Order 8 of the CPC,
counterclaimed cannot be quashed without justified reasons.  Also held that under this
provision it does not put a bar on filing of the written statement and the restriction is only
made with respect of the accrual of the cause of action.
 However this does not means that Defendant has the absolute right to file a Counter - Claim
and Defendant cannot wait for filing the counterclaim till limitation is expired for delaying
the process.

2
1987 SCC (3) 265 
3
Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963

4
  While dealing with the second issue that is restriction on filing of counterclaim after filing of
a written statement the Court has held that Court can exercises his discretion to permit the
filing of counterclaim after the filing of a written statement but not after the issues has been
framed.
 The Hon’ble Court has also held that the Court has power to entertain the filing of a
counterclaim after determining and evaluating the factors for raising the counterclaim in
various cases these are the inclusive factor.
Analysis
I completely agree with the outcome of the case as the Supreme Court has decided the case after
deterring all the relevant factor and legal principles and rules. The court has adopted the balance
approached keeping in mind the end goal of justice. The Order 8 of CPC clearly stated that the
objective of legislature is to advance the cause of justice by placing a bar on the filing of belated
counterclaim. But at the same time the approach cannot be very strict that Court couldn’t allow filing
of belated counterclaim in exceptional cases. The court must exercise its discretion to balance the
right to file counterclaim and right to speedy trail simultaneously in order to delivered justice.4

Conclusion
The time limitation for filing a counterclaim is not mentioned anywhere in the legislature, rather only
limitation is mentioned for accrualling the cause of action. The Court exercised his power and made
a right decision so that no injustice is being suffered by any of the parties.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/cpc-lecture-3-case-analysis-of-all-the-recent-and-
4

landmark-judgments-relating-to-code-of-civil-procedure-1908-4641.asp

5
CASE STUDY -2
Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v The Central Bank of
India

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: 2020 (215) AIC 181, 2020 AIR (SC) 2721
Date of Judgement: 5 June 2020th

Bench: Hon’ble J. A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Indira Banerjee and J. Dinesh Maheshwari

Acts involved: Limitation Act, 1963 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Provisions involved: Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908
 
ABSTRACT:
Limitation Act does not provide any specific article with regard to time period within which can e
sought by party from its bank. As such Article 113 came into picture which provides a limitation
period of 3 years for suits for which no limitation period is provide. “When the right to sue accrues”
and “when to right to sue first accrues” both statement given under Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Order VII Rule 11d talks about the rejection of plaint when the limitation period is expired under
Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The present case concern with this topic. The court has to look into the
matter and decide when the time of limitation started for filing of suits under Article 113 of the
Limitation Act. This case study shed lights on the fact of the case, what are issues involved then
summary of judgment and at the last the author analysis of judgment and conclusion

Keywords: Limitation Act, Article 113, Rights

INTRODUCTION:
In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. The Central Bank of India5 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
clarified the commencement of 3 year limitation period inspect under Article 113 of Limitation Act,
19636. It also emphasizes on the importance of Considering the allegation made in a plaint as a

5
2020 (215) AIC 181, 2020 AIR (SC) 2721

6
Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963

6
whole while examining an application for rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 19087 ( herein CPC).

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

 The respondent (Respondent Bank) increases the financial facility for one of its account
holders (Appellant), which effect from April 1, 1997 until October 2007.
 But the appellant realized that the on the local cheques and draft bank had been solitary and
arbitrarily charging tax/commission at the rate of Rs. 4 per thousand rupees on violation of
the assurance given earlier.
 After getting notice from appellant regarding tax the respondent bank revised the interest as
per assurance given earlier but, failed in giving back the money of appellant that is
overcharged in name of tax.
 After making several efforts by Appellant for refunding of excess amount charged by them
the appellants filed the suit on February 23, 2005 before the Trial Court for seeking (i)
rendition of true and correct accounts with regard to interest/commission charged by the
Respondent Bank and (i) Refund of the excess amount deduct by the respondent bank from
its current account for the period between 1.04.1997 and 31.12.2000 with interest of 18 % per
annum.
 The Trial Court reject the plaint filled by the appellant under the Rule 11d of Order VII of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on the ground that appellant filled the plaint after the expiry of
limitation period i.e. 3 years as stated in the Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963. 
 The same decision also given District court and High court that right to sue accrued to the
Appellant in October 2000. 
 Accordingly, The Appellant preferred an appeal by way of Special Leave Petition under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India 8 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for setting aside
the decision of High Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Appellant plaint filed in Supreme Court could have been rejected by invoking Order VII
Rule 11d of the CPC?
 
CONTENTIONS

7
Order VII rule 11d of Civil Procedure Code,1908
8
Article 136 of the Constitution of India,1950

7
  The appellant has submitted that both courts i.e. trial court and high court have wrongly
interpreted Article 113 of the Limitation Act which hold that sued filled by appellant is
rejected because limitation period is expired for filing suit.
 Further contented that plaintiff was governed by Section 22 and Articles 2 & 3 of Limitation
Act, 1963 as the period of limitation has to be start from 8-05-2002 when the senior manager
of respondent bank inform the appellant that cheques were being purchased at the prevalent
rate. Hence the date of suit filed by appellant in the year 2005  is valid within limitation
period
 The Respondent relied on the decision of the court in Boota Mal v. Union of India,9 in this
case it was held that cause of action should acruse within 3 years of limitation period. The
respondent bank action is accordance with the rules and the appellant need not to correspond
with the bank any more in this issue.
 
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT:
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the decision of the Trial Court in first appeal and the High
Court in second appeal, rejecting the plaint in question under Rule 11d of Order VII of the CPC
set-aside and quashed. 
 The lower wrongly proceeded to reject the plaint they failed to advert to and analyze the relevant
fact of the plaint that appellant came to know about discrepancies in July 2000.
 According to plaint, the Appellant commences his cause of action on all the intervals between
08.05.2002 and 07.01.2005. The plaint filed on 23.02.2005 and it is not beyond the limitation
period and therefore plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11d of the CPC 
 Therefore appeal succeeds and appellant can restore his appeal in trial court to its original number
and proceeded according to the law.
 The Hon’ble court further observed that the court can exercise its power under Rule 11d of Order
VII of the CPC at any stage of the suit. It can be before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant or at any time before the conclusion.
 
 
ANALYSIS

9
AIR 1962 SC 1716.

8
The Supreme Court referred the decision of Union of India vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr10
this case stated that there is a contradiction between the Article 113 and Article 58 of the Limitation
Act 1963.
 
In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India11 it was held that there is contradiction between
Article 12012 that period of limitation is 6 years and the Article 58 13 talks about when the right to sue
first accrues of the Limitation Act. In these articles the limitation period is mention is different
slightly.
 
The court examined all the material facts in plaint and then decides in favor of appellant which is
totally correct. The court also pointed the mistake of the lowers court that they failed to interpret
Article 113 wrongly and they should remember that after reading the plaint in meaning full manner it
is clear that if the allegation are vexatious and meritless and not disclosing the right to sue, it is the
duty of the Judge of Trail court to exercise its power under Rule 11d of Order VII so that litigation
can shot down at the earliest stage.
 
CONCLUSION:
The Court considered the factual position in the present case. Arguments raised by both the sides do
not rise by substantial question. The present case covered under Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963
as the cause of action has arises on false grounds there is illegal debiting of interest charged each
time. There is a huge mistake of bank that is not communicated with appellant about the deduction of
tax from purchasing of cherubs. The decision of court in the present case is made after looking into
each aspects of the plaint.

10
(2004) 2 SCC 747
11
(2011) 9 SCC 126
12
Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1963
13
Article 58 of Limitation Act