JAGJEET SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. Sidhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the respondent No. 1 on the merits of the case. The plaintiff Darshan Kaur executed a sale deed dated 07.02.2002 in favour of Teji Bai and, subsequently, instituted a suit for the cancellation of the said sale deed. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners who are the sons of Darshan Kaur tiled an application for impleadment Initially, this application was rejected against which the petitioners preferred a writ petition which was allowed and a direction was issued to the trial court to implead the petitioners as contesting defendants in the suit. Accordingly, the petitioners were arrayed as respondent defendant No. 4 to 7 in the suit. The petitioners accordingly tiled the written statement in which a counter claim was also filed as provided under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.). In the counter claim, the petitioners contended that they are also the co-owners of the property in question since ft was purchased by their father and that their mother had no right or authority to sell the property. The petitioners accordingly prayed that a declaration be issued that they are the co-owners of the property, in question and that the property be partitioned by metes and bounds.

(2.) The contesting defendant i.e. Teji Bai filed a written statement to the counter claim filed by the petitioners denying the allegation and further contending that this was a collusive counter claim in connivance with their mother, i.e., plaintiff. The objection/written statement filed by Teji Bai was resisted by the petitioners contending that a co-defendant, namely Teji Bai could not file any written statement to the counter claim of the petitioners, who itself was one of the defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff Darshan Kaur. The trial court, after considering the matter and upon hearing the parties, allowed the written statement of Teji Bai to be kept on record. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that a co-defendant cannot file the written statement and consequently, the objections/written statement/counter claim filed by Teji Bai cannot be taken on record. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, 2003 7 SCC 350 and Rohit Singh & others Vs. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand), 2006 12 SCC 734, wherein it was held that a co-defendant cannot file a counter claim against another co-defendant in a suit.