IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.

CITY CIVIL &

SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-26)

Dated this the 30th day of June, 2018.

Present
Sri MARUTHI S. BAGADE, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl.),
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

O.S.No.219/2010

Plaintiffs: Venkataraman & others

Vs.
Defendants: M/s Ruthu & Rithu Enterprises & others

I.A.No.II

Applicant : M/s AVI Warehouse – Defendant No.34

v/s

Opponents : Venkataraman & others- Plaintiffs

ORDER ON I.A.No.II

This is an application filed by the defendant No.34

under Order I Rule 10(1) read with Section 151 CPC to

permit him to implead M/s Super 6 Products Pvt. Ltd.,

represented by its Chief Executive Officer & Managing

Director Mr.Venkataraman, No.1134, 5th Main,

Vivekananda Nagar, Mysore-23 as defendant No.4 to

counter claim. As per records, objection appears to be

not filed.
 2 O.S.No.219/2010

2. Heard the applicant’s counsel and perused the

records. Since plaintiffs’ counsel not turned up, his

arguments not heard.

3. The points that arise for my determination are as

under:-

1) Whether defendant No.34 can be

permitted to make counter claim
against third party, who is not plaintiff
or defendant in the suit?

2) What order?

4. My findings on the above points are as

follows:-

1) In the negative;

2) As per final order, for the following:-

REASONS

5. POINT No.1:- As it can be seen from the

records, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for

permanent injunction, for which present

applicant/defendant No.34 had not only filed written

statement also made a counter claim against the plaintiff

No.1 to 3, thereafter he filed the present application

 3 O.S.No.219/2010

seeking impleadment of M/s Super 6 Products Pvt. Ltd.

as defendant No.4.

6. The materials on record shows that, looking into

the failure of plaintiffs to file objection, myself allowed

the said application on 11.09.2017 and on 09.10.2017,

when on examination of the application in detail, I came

to know that the defendant No.34 i.e., plaintiff in counter

claim intends to implead third person who is not party to

the suit as defendant No.4 in his counter claim. As I felt

this is not permissible in law as provided under Order

VIII Rule 6-A CPC, myself suo-mottu recalled that order

and thereafter the learned counsel has filed application to

recall my order dated 09.10.2017, his application was

allowed on 27.02.2018 and in exercise of my

discretionary power I took up I.A.No.2 for fresh

consideration. At that time, the contention of the learned

applicant’s counsel was that the very purpose behind the

impleadment of provisions of Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC is

to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and therefore

defendant No.34 since made counter claim against the

plaintiffs and as proposed defendant’s participation in the

proceedings is necessary to fix the liability, an application

 4 O.S.No.219/2010

is filed for impleading of the Company and as such, there

is no any bar to allow the application.

7. After careful reading of provisions of Order VIII

Rule 6A CPC, it is evident that any defendant can make a

counter claim only against the plaintiff/plaintiffs about

the cause of action arising out of the same transaction

between the plaintiff and defendants only. Order VIII

Rule 6-A CPC does not cover the cause of actions arose

due to the transactions between plaintiff, defendant and

also third parties who are not parties to the suit. In the

case on hand, the proposed defendant No.4 to the

counter claim admittedly not party to the suit. It is

therefore I am of the opinion that if at all any transaction

was there between defendant No.34 and proposed

defendant No.4 including the plaintiffs, he would have

filed a separate suit. Since the present suit is one for

injunction, defendant No.34 is competent to maintain the

counter claim only against the plaintiff and none else. As

such, I am of the opinion that the application filed by the

defendant No.34 under Order I Rule 10(1) CPC for

impleading the proposed defendant as defendant No.4 to

counter claim is not maintainable and therefore liable to

 5 O.S.No.219/2010

be set aside. Hence, point No.1 under discussion is

answered in negative.

8. POINT No.2:- For the reasons stated above,

now I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

I.A.No.II filed under Order I

Rule 10(1) read with Section 151 of

CPC is rejected.

No costs awarded.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed

by him on computer, printout taken, corrected
and then pronounced by me in the Open Court
on this the 30th day of June, 2018).

(MARUTHI S. BAGADE)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.

Digitally signed by MARUTHI BAGADE

MARUTHI DN: cn=MARUTHI BAGADE,ou=HIGH

COURT OF
KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF

BAGADE KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN
Date: 2018.07.05 10:35:41 IST