ATHIGANAPATHY Vs. A V SAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner against the same respondents. The respondents 1 and 2 in both the above Civil Revision Petitions have filed two suits both before the Court of Principal District Munsif, Sivagangai, first one in O.S. No. 96 of 1997 and the Second one in O.S. No. 138 of 1997. The prayers in both the above suits are exactly the same i.e. for declaration and consequential permanent injunction restraining-the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. In O.S. No. 96 of 1997 the suit property is a nanja land measuring 3.92 acres in S. No. 120/3 and in O.S. No. 138 of 1997, the suit properties are the nanja lands falling under S. Nos. 120/1 and 120/2 respectively measuring 5.79 acres and 1.06 acres. The suit properties in both the suits are located in one and the same village i.e. Kottagudi Village in Sivagangai Taluk and District.

(2.) PENDING the above said suits, the petitioner herein who is the defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 96 of 1997 and defendant No. 2 in O.S No. 138 of 1997 has filed two petitions in LA. Nos. 311 of 1999 and I.A. No 314 of 1999 before the lower Court, both under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to file counter claim.

(3.) ON the other hand, on the part of the respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel, pointing out the same paragraphs of the judgment of the Apex Court extracted supra, would lay emphasis that under Order 8 Rule 6-A(1) CPC, it is incumbent that only those rights or claims in respect of a cause of action accruing to a defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limit for delivering his defence has expired and if this legal yardstick is used, the learned counsel would exhort that the petitions could not be allowed and hence they have been rightly dismissed by the lower Court. ON such arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would seek to dismiss both the above Civil Revision Petitions.