Counter-claim maintainability under CPC and Treasure-Trove Act depends on accrued cause of action and statutory stage of proceedings

Section 14 of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878 applies only to the post-declaration proceedings contemplated by Sections 9 and 13, because the phrase "such order" refers to the order under Section 13 and not to an adjournment under Section 8; a counter-claim arising from a suit under Section 8 therefore could not be rejected on that basis. Order VIII Rule 6A(1) CPC does not bar a counter-claim merely because it is filed after the written statement, provided the cause of action had accrued before the defence was delivered or before time for doing so expired. On the facts stated, the counter-claim was also within the three-year limitation period and was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 14 of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878 governed a counter-claim arising in a suit instituted under Section 8 of that Act. (ii) Whether Order VIII, Rule 6A(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred a counter-claim filed after the written statement and whether the counter-claim was within limitation.

Issue (i): Whether Section 14 of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878 governed a counter-claim arising in a suit instituted under Section 8 of that Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme draws a distinction between a suit under Section 8, which is filed to establish the claimant's right to treasure when the Collector adjourns the enquiry, and a suit under Section 14, which arises only after a declaration under Section 9 and an order under Section 13. The expression "such order" in Section 14 was read as referring to the order under Section 13, and not to the adjournment contemplated by Section 8. Reading Section 14 as applying to proceedings under Section 8 would defeat the distinct legislative structure of the Act.

Conclusion: Section 14 did not apply to the suit or counter-claim arising from proceedings under Section 8, and the dismissal on that ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Order VIII, Rule 6A(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred a counter-claim filed after the written statement and whether the counter-claim was within limitation.

Analysis: Rule 6A(1) permits a counter-claim so long as the cause of action had accrued before the defendant delivered his defence or before the time for delivering it expired. The mere fact that the counter-claim was filed after the written statement did not make it non-maintainable. Since the cause of action had accrued before the written statement and the counter-claim was filed within three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it was within time and maintainable. The treatment of a counter-claim as a suit under Section 3(2)(b) of the Limitation Act also supported this conclusion.

Conclusion: Order VIII, Rule 6A(1) did not bar the counter-claim, and the counter-claim was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the adverse orders were set aside, and the suit together with the counter-claim was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878 applies only to the post-declaration proceedings contemplated by Sections 9 and 13, while a counter-claim is maintainable if its cause of action accrued before the defence was delivered and it is filed within the applicable limitation period.

---