SABIR HUSSAIN RAINI Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, petitioner/plaintiff filed Suit No. 121 of 1991 in the court of Civil Judge, Etawah for the relief of permanent injunction and accounting in respect of disputed property in question qua Abdul Aleem. During pendency of the Suit, Smt. Jamarrud Begaum, respondent no.4 was also added as party. She filed her written statement taking stand that property had been purchased from erstwhile owner by registered sale deed on 14.6.1965 and same had been let out to the defendant No. 1 of the suit through rent note dated 17.8.1984, and further plaintiff on the basis of the fictitious sale deed has taken possession of the property. In the written statement itself counter claim for ejectment from the property in dispute has been claim. Counter claim was valued and court fee was paid. Said counter claim was objected to by petitioner/plaintiff contending that same was not competent, as no relief has been claimed against the said respondents. Said application was considered and it was rejected on 14.8.1992. Against the same revision was filed and same has also been dismissed on 30.8.1993. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case courts below have erred in law in entertaining the counter claim for ejectment of plaintiff from the premises in question whereas same was not at all legally maintainable under Order 8 Rule 6 and 6A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in such a situation orders are liable to be set aside.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner, has placed reliance on Division Bench judgement of Patna High Court, in the case of Jaswant Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur for the preposition, that counter claim is limited to cases involving money claim. The said judgment will not at all help the petitioner, as very narrow view has been taken in the manner, frustrating the very object for which, said provision has been introduced. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Bhag Singh, 1996 AIR(SC) 1087 paragraph 3 has clarified such a situation and held as follows:-