SAMBHU NATH DAY Vs. RAGHUNATH DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned Lawyer for the petitioner has contended that by the impugned order, the petition under Order 8 Rule 6C of C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff for exclusion of counter-claim has been rejected by the learned Lower Court without considering whether such counter-claim can be made in a suit for declaration and injunction.

(3.) Learned Lawyer for the petitioner further contended that by way of counter-claim, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property against the defendants including the present opposite party No.4 and the opposite party No.4 as defendant No.4 filed counter-claim in his written statement praying for decree of eviction of the plaintiff in respect of "B" Schedule property which is part of the suit property and also for dismissal of the suit. The suit for ejectment of licensee and also for recovery of khas possession has no nexus with the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction and so the defendant No.4 could not have any relief by filing such counter-claim. He could have filed separate suit if so advised.