Supreme Court of India

Mahendra Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh

(1987) 3 SCC 265; AIR 1987 SC 139519871 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Treasure was found while the respondents were rebuilding their house. In a suit about the treasure under the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, the appellants filed a written statement claiming title and later filed a counter-claim. The District Judge dismissed the counter-claim as barred by S.14 of the Act, and the High Court further held it not maintainable under O.VIII R.6A(1) because it was filed after the written statement.
Issue
Whether O.VIII R.6A(1) bars a counter-claim filed after the written statement.
Held
The appeal was allowed. R.6A(1) does not bar a counter-claim after the written statement; it requires that the cause of action accrued before the defendant delivered his defence or before the time for doing so expired. S.14 of the Treasure Trove Act did not apply to a suit under S.8. The District Judge was directed to hear the suit and the counter-claim.
Principle
O.VIII R.6A(1) limits the accrual of the cause of action, not the date of filing the counter-claim.
Cite this

Facts

  • Treasure was found while the respondents were rebuilding their house. In a suit about the treasure under the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, the appellants filed a written statement claiming title and later filed a counter-claim. The District Judge dismissed the counter-claim as barred by S.14 of the Act, and the High Court further held it not maintainable under O.VIII R.6A(1) because it was filed after the written statement.

Issue

  1. Whether O.VIII R.6A(1) bars a counter-claim filed after the written statement.

Held

  • The appeal was allowed. R.6A(1) does not bar a counter-claim after the written statement; it requires that the cause of action accrued before the defendant delivered his defence or before the time for doing so expired. S.14 of the Treasure Trove Act did not apply to a suit under S.8. The District Judge was directed to hear the suit and the counter-claim.

Ratio decidendi

The time limit in R.6A(1) relates to the accrual of the cause of action. A counter-claim on a cause of action that arose before the defence was delivered may be filed after the written statement, subject to limitation.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Counter-claim timing: Cite with Ashok Kumar Kalra v Surendra Agnihotri (2019), which adds the outer limit of framing of issues.
  • Key line: "R.6A(1) does not bar a counter-claim after the written statement (Mahendra Kumar, 1987)."

Cite this

Citation

Mahendra Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh (1987) 3 SCC 265; AIR 1987 SC 1395

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1385397/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.