In the case of xyz vs. xyz & Ors. (Suit No. 793/19), the Civil Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 13.10.2025, dismissed two applications filed by the Defendant No.1 under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading Mr. xyz (plaintiff’s son) as a party, and another under Section 151 CPC seeking leave to file a counterclaim.
The Court held that impleadment of the plaintiff’s son was not necessary to establish whether the suit property qualifies as a matrimonial or shared household. Moreover, the ownership of the suit property and relationship between the plaintiff and plaintiff’s son were undisputed, and the plaintiff, being dominus litis, could not be compelled to sue an unwilling party. The Court further observed that the proposed counterclaim was barred and impermissible, as identical reliefs under Sections 18, 19, and 22 of the DV Act had already been adjudicated and disposed of by the Mahila Court on 07.02.2024, and the present case was already at the stage of defendant’s evidence. it is held that counterclaims cannot be entertained after framing of issues.
Accordingly, both applications were dismissed as belated and an abuse of process.