SUMAN KUMAR Vs. ST THOMAS SCHOOL AND HOSTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dt./-28-11-1985, whereby the trial court negatived the contention of the defendant-petitioner to convert his counter-claim into a plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner and others for restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff school forcibly and from interfering in its peaceful possession. In that suit, the defendant petitioner filed a counter-claim as contemplated under O.8, R.6-A, Civil P.C. Later on, the plaintiff was allowed to withdraw its suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Thus, the suit was dismissed as having been withdrawn. At that stage, it was requested on behalf of defendant 3 to convert his counter claim into a plaint, and to decide it as such, as contemplated under O.3, R.6-D, Civil P.C. The trial court repelled the contention of the defendant with the following observation :- "So, when the suit filed by St. Thomas School through its Secretary has not been found to be maintainable, counter-claim put forth by defendant 3 if converted into a plaint will fall on the same ground namely, that it will not be maintainable against a registered/corporate body represented through Kishan Chand not properly authorised to defend the counter claim. Accordingly, therefore, finding no merit in the contention made on behalf of defendant 3 to convert the counter-claim into a plaint, I hereby dismiss the same." Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that even if the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed as withdrawn, the counter claim could be proceeded with as provided under O.8, R.6-D, Civil P.C. In support of this contention he referred to Ved Parkash v. Om Dutt, (1984) 86 Pun LR 411, Munshi Ram v. Radha Kishari, AIR 1975 Punj and Har 112, Bhagirath Singh v. Ram Nath, AIR 1977 NOC 219 (Madh Pra), Bhim Sain v. Laxmi Narain, 1982 Cur LJ (Civ) 1 and Ranjit Singh v. Kartara Ram, 1985 Pun LJ 521. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submitted that no counter-claim was maintainable except in the suits for recovery of money, and, therefore, the counter-claim had been rightly dismissed. In support of this contention, he referred to Jashwant Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur, AIR 1983 Pat 132. It was next contended that in any case, the counter claim was liable to be dismissed in view of S.6, Registration of Societies Act. That being so, argued the learned counsel, the impugned order was valid, and could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case law cited at the Bar. The provisions of O.8, R.6, as amended in the year 1976 came up for consideration in this Court before a Division Bench in Bhim Sain's case (supra) where proceedings under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, were taken by the landlord to eject his tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. However, the tenant deposited the arrears on the first date of hearing as claimed but at the same time he disputed the rate of rent. Since the arrears were paid by the tenant, the landlord got his petition dismissed. Aggrieved with it, the tenant came up in revision that his plea that the rate of rent was less ought to have been decided by the Rent Controller even if the landlord did not want to continue with his petition. The said contention of the tenant was accepted by this Court, and the Rent Controller was directed to frame the issue in this regard and determine the quantum of rent. While deciding that case the provisions of O.8, Rr.6-A to 6-G, C.P.C., were considered and it was observed :