BHAIRON PRASAD Vs. HARGOVIND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision filed by the plaintiff in Regular Suit No. 11 of 1985, pending in the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Hardoi, against the order passed by the trial court, allowing the defendant -opposite parties No. 3 and 4 to plead counter -claim in their written statement and rejecting the objections raised by the plaintiff against the same. The plaintiff -revisionist filed a suit praying for relief of permanent injunction and for specific performance of an agreement under which it is said that opposite Party No. 3 Shanti Swaroop Singh had agreed to sell the houses in question to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 48,500/ -. It appears that the plaintiff -revisionist amended the plaint and added Smt. Omwati Gupta and Smt. Kamlesh Rani Gupta as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to the suit. The aforesaid defendants Nos. 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement with the averments that they had purchased the property in question by means of a registered sale deed for valuable consideration and by way of counter claim, they prayed for the relief of possession of the houses by eviction of the plaintiff -revisionists. As stated earlier, the plaintiff -revisionist raised objection to the making of counter -claim by the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, which was overruled by the court below.

(2.) THE only point urged by the revisionist before me is that a counterclaim is permissible only in suits for recovery of money under Order VIII, Rule 6 C.P.C. It has been submitted that in no other case of any nature, counter claim is permissible. In support of his contention, the revisionist has placed reliance upon sub -rule (1) of Rule 6 of Order VIII, C.P.C. which reads as follows: - -

(3.) A perusal of Rule 6 of Order VIII C.P.C. leaves no room for doubt that a set -off can be claimed only in respect of a suit for recovery of money as the nature of suit has been specified in Rule 6. However, so far Rule 6 -A of Order VIII C.P.C. is concerned, nature of suit has not been specified therein. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon Rule 6 -F of order VIII C.P.C. which reads as follows: - -