Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Raviudyog
- SCC1994 Supp (2) SCC 466
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a money claim is brought by writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and a counter-claim is raised in response, the High Court cannot grant relief on the admitted portions of the claim while relegating the counter-claim to a separate suit; instead, both the writ petition and counter must be treated as a plaint and written statement respectively and tried together as a suit on the original side of the court, so that all claims and counter-claims between the parties are adjudicated in a single proceeding. Where admissions of claim are found to exist during trial of such a converted suit, the trial court may pronounce upon those admissions piecemeal at an appropriate stage if permitted under the law of civil procedure.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. We have no hesitation in allowing this appeal. The respondents had a money-claim against the appellants. Instead of moving the appropriate court in a suit, they approached the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the + Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14531 of 1993 467 Constitution. The writ petition attracted a counter from the appellant who raised a counter-claim. Without adverting to the counter-claim, the High Court went on to grant relief of payment of certain sums to the writ petitioner on the basis of certain suggested admissions made by the appellant. The High Court then followed two separate courses inasmuch as relegating the appellant to the remedy of suit insofar as his counter-claim was concerned and ordering payment against the appellant insofar as the admissions went. This twin course appears to us as to be wholly wrong. It does not appeal to us as to why a party has to go piecemeal in the civil court, though it is appreciable that when a claim is admitted, a decree may be permissible to be passed under the Code of Civil Procedure. But that too has to happen in a suit before an appropriate court of law. We thus are persuaded to straighten out things which have gone awry, if not for anything else at least for the sake of procedural and judicial discipline. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court effecting a remittal, directing the writ petition to be treated by the High Court as a plaint and the counter filed by the appellant thereto as written statement, to be tried as a suit by the High Court on its original side treating it to have been filed on the date on which it was originally filed. Likewise, the counter of the appellant shall also be treated as a counter-claim having been filed on the date it was filed. The High Court on its original side shall regulate the suit by permitting the parties to make good deficiencies in the requisite court fees and by amendment of pleadings if permission sought. We make it clear that if the trial Judge considers that there are any admissions of claim, it may at an appropriate stage pronounce upon the same piecemeal if permitted under the law. With these directions, the matter is remitted to the High Court on its original side. Costs of this Court shall abide by the event in the trial court.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free