KULWANT SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 7-3-2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Samrala allowing the application of plaintiff -respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed under Order VIII, Rule 6-C of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) for exclusion of counter-claim made by defendant-petitioner along with defendant-respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18. The Civil Judge while allowing the application of plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for excluding the counter-claim set up by defendant-petitioner and defendant-respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18 recorded the following order :

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this revision petition are that plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 795 of 7-12-1995 seeking declaration that plaintiffrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 have subsisting interest by birth as coparceners in the Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property of defendant-Mukhtiar Singh son of Punnu s/o Shri Kanha Singh, resident of village Mushkabad, tehsil Samrala, district Ludhiana. It is further claimed that plaintiff- respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are also entitled to the share of defendant-petitioner and defendant-respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18 they being sons of Mukhtiar Singh, Joint possession of the land was also claimed along with the claim for permanent injunction restraining defendant Mukhtiar Singh, defendant-petitioner and defendant-respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18 from alienating or mortgaging their share in the disputed property. Defendant-petitioner along with defendant-respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18 filed their written statement and also set up a counter-claim against the property held by defendant-respondent Ujjagar Singh and his wife..............In order to exclude adjudication on the counter-claim made by defendant-petitioner along with defendant-respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18, an application under Order VIII, Rule 6-C of the Code was filed which has been allowed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition.

(3.) Shri K. S. Bassi, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that Order VIII, Rule 6-A does not impose any embargo on the light of the defendant-petitioner to set up a counter claim against a co-defendant. He has placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Anupama Rubber Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Limited, 1999 (1) Pun LJ 300.