RAJENDRA UPADHYAYS Vs. MADAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 - petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 171 of 1986 accepting the counterclaim of Defendant No. 13, has preferred this application.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that defendant No. 13 appeared in the suit and laid counter claim against the plaintiff as also other defendants. He had chosen to file the counter claim without filing the written statement. By reason of the impugned order said prayer has been allowed.

(3.) MR . Verma, appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 13 however, contends that a counter -claim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff and it may also claim relief against co -defendant. He submits that in the present case Defendant No. 13 had sought relief not only against the plaintiff but the co -defendant also and, as such, the counter -claim was rightly accepted. In support of the submission, Mr. Verma has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar 2007(1) PLJR (SC) 232 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 18 of the judgment, which reads as follows: