Supreme Court of India· 11 August 2026
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can a single composite appeal be filed against the two decrees drawn up when a suit and a counterclaim are disposed of by one common judgment?
Basudev & Ors v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors
2026 INSC 831 · SLP (C) No.4338 of 2025
Coram: K. Vinod Chandran; J. B. Pardiwala
Answer
Yes. Since Order VIII Rules 6A to 6D of the CPC treat a counterclaim as a cross-suit interlinked with the suit claim for adjudication on the evidence led at one trial, a suit and a counterclaim disposed of by a single common judgment can be challenged by way of one composite appeal, resolving the cleavage of opinion among the High Courts on the point.
Headnote
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VIII Rules 6A to 6D — Order XX Rule 19 — Suit and counterclaim disposed of by a common judgment — Maintainability of a composite appeal —
Held: The decisions of various High Courts reveal a cleavage of opinion on whether two separate appeals must be filed against the two decrees — one dismissing the suit, the other allowing the counterclaim, or vice versa — drawn up pursuant to a common judgment, and on whether two decrees are required to be drawn up at all. (¶2, 18)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VIII Rules 6A to 6D — Counterclaim treated as cross-suit — Composite appeal against common judgment maintainable —
Held further: Since Order VIII Rules 6A to 6D of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 treat a counterclaim as a cross-suit interlinked with the suit claim so that both are adjudicated together on the evidence led at one trial, a suit and a counterclaim disposed of by a single common judgment can be challenged by a composite appeal; the composite appeal must, however, show the grounds raised against the decree in the suit and the decree in the counterclaim separately, whether one or two decrees have been drawn up, and must be valued and have court fees paid as for two separate appeals. (¶18, 19, 29)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Composite appeal — First appeal restored — Fresh memorandum with separate grounds permitted —
Held further: Since only a single appeal had earlier been filed and was rejected as incompetent, the impugned orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside and the first appeal restored; the appellant is permitted to file a fresh memorandum with separate grounds and pay court fees for the additional appeal, to be considered by the First Appellate Court along with the earlier appeal. (¶30, 31)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 2The question to be answered in this appeal is as to whether there should be two appeals filed from the two decrees drawn up when a suit with a counterclaim is disposed of by a single judgment. The ancillary question would also be whether in every such situation two decrees should be drawn up.
Paragraph 18The aforesaid decisions clearly indicate that there is a cleavage of opinion, insofar as whether two appeals are required to be filed when there is a suit and a counterclaim, both being disposed of by a common judgment. There also seems to be dissimilarity in the procedure adopted in the different States, in drawing up the decree from a single judgment, allowing one claim and rejecting the other, which normally gives rise to two decrees. We are in full agreement with the interpretation of Rule 6A to 6D of Order VIII of the CPC; CA @ SLP (C) No.4338 of 2025 inserted in 1976, as declared in Rajni Rani[^11]. Rule 6A (1) enabled a counterclaim against the claim in the plaint, in addition to the right to plead set off. Sub-rule (2) enables the counterclaim to be treated as a cross-suit, facilitating a common judgment, both on the suit claim and the counterclaim. The plaintiff is provided a right to file a written statement in answer to the counterclaim, especially since the counterclaim is deemed to be a plaint under sub-rule (4); governed by the rules applicable to plaints. The rules relating to written statements are also made applicable to the written statement in reply to the counterclaim, by virtue of Rule 6G of Order VIII.
Paragraph 29Finding no contrary or restrictive provisions in the CPC, we hold and declare that a suit and a counterclaim, if adjudicated by a single common judgment; both on the original claim and on the counterclaim, it can be challenged in a composite appeal. The composite appeal, however, should CA @ SLP (C) No.4338 of 2025 show the grounds raised against the decree in the suit and the decree in the counterclaim separately; whether there are two decrees or one drawn up. The composite appeal should also be valued as two separate appeals and the court fees paid accordingly. This would enable the appeal to be considered on merits, without the grounds of estoppel and res judicata raised only for reason of two appeals not being filed. Though an implied mandate could be drawn from the various provisions, we are of the opinion that this would ensure avoidance of procedural rigmarole as also multiplicity of litigations.
Acts & Sections
Section 5 of the Limitation ActSection 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XX Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XX Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 141 of the Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Basudev & Ors v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →