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.

(2.) 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 house in question to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 48,500/-. It appears that the plaintiff-revisionist amended the plaint and added Smt. Umwati Gupta and Smt. Kamlesh Rani Gupta as defendants No. 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 house by eviction of the plaintiff-revisionists. As stated earlier, the plaintiff-revisionist raised objection to the making of counter-claim by the defendants No. 3 and 4, which was overruled by the court below.

(3.) ON the basis of Rule 6-F of Order VIII and Rule 19 of Order XX CPC, it has been submitted that in a case where set-off or counter-claim is preferred, any balance which is found due to the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, the Court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance and the decree shall state the amount found due in favour of the plaintiff or the defendant. The submission, therefore, which has been advanced by the revisionist, is that it is evident that the counter-claim under Rule 6-A of Order VIII CPC is confined to the claim of amount of money i.e. to say in respect of a suit which is for recovery of some amount of money.