SUSHILA DEVI Vs. POONAM SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties finally.

(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Additional Munsif -1st at Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 97 of 2002 allowing the petition dated 11.8.2003 filed on behalf of the plaintiff -respondent under Order VIII Rule 6 -C of the Code of Civil Procedure for exclusion of the counter claim brought by the defendant -petitioner.

(3.) MR . Rajesh Lala, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner purchased part of the property from Smt. Shanti Rani Chakraborty on 23.7.1999 and thereafter she and her son sold part of the property to the respondent on 3.3.2000. A common drain was shown in the map, as part of the schedule of the sale deed. He further submitted that in the sale deed of the respondent also it is mentioned as "existing drain", but the other stipulation in the sale deed of the respondent is hit by Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. He referred to the reports of the Amin dated 2.12.2000 and 5.1.2001. He further submitted that it cannot be said that there is no nexus between the claims of the parties, and, therefore, in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, counter claim of the petitioner should not have been excluded. He further submitted that the counter claim can be entertained till the issues are settled. He relied on the judgment of Jag Mohan Chawla and Another VS. Dera Radha Swamy Satsang and Others (AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2222).