Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision filed by the plaintiff in Regular Suit No. 11 of 1985, pending in the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Hardoi, against the order passed by the trial court, allowing the defendant-opposite parties No. 3 and 4 to plead counter-claim in their written statement and rejecting the objections raised by the plaintiff against the same.
(2.) THE plaintiff-revisionist filed a suit praying for relief of permanent injunction and for specific performance of an agreement under which it is said that opposite party No. 3 Shanti Swaroop Singh had agreed to sell the house in question to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 48,500/-. It appears that the plaintiff-revisionist amended the plaint and added Smt. Umwati Gupta and Smt. Kamlesh Rani Gupta as defendants No. 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement with the averments that they had purchased the property in question by means of a registered sale deed for valuable consideration and by way of counter-claim, they prayed for the relief of possession of the house by eviction of the plaintiff-revisionists. As stated earlier, the plaintiff-revisionist raised objection to the making of counter-claim by the defendants No. 3 and 4, which was overruled by the court below. The only point urged by the revisionist before me is that a counterclaim is permissible only in suits for recovery of money under Order VIII, Rule 6 CPC. It has been submitted that in no other case of any nature, counter claim is permissible. In support of his contention, the revisionist has placed reliance upon sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Order VIII, CPC which reads as follows :- " (1) Where in a suit for the recovery of money the defendant claims to set-off against the plaintiff's demand any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff, not exceeding the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, and both parties fill the same character as they fill in the plaintiff's suit, the defendant may, at the first hearing of the suit, but not afterwards unless permitted by the Court, present a written statement containing the particulars of the debt sought to be set-off. " Against the submission made on behalf of the revisionist, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that counter-claim in any suit, not necessarily in a suit for recovery of money alone, is permissible under Order VIII, Rule 6-A CPC. Rule 6-A of Order VIII CPC reads as follows :- "6-A. (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set-up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not : Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints." A perusal of Rule 6 of Order VIII CPC leaves no room for doubt that a set-off can be claimed only in respect of a suit for recovery of money as the nature of suit has been specified in Rule 6. However, so far Rule 6-A of Order VIII CPC is concerned, nature of suit has not been specified therein. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon Rule 6-F of Order VIII CPC which reads as follows :- "6-F. Where in any suit a set-off or counter-claim is established as a defence against the plaintiff's claim, and any balance is found due to the defendant as the case may be, the Court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance." Order XX Rule 19 CPC has also been referred to by the revisionist which reads as follows :- "19. (1) Where the defendant has been allowed a set-off or counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, the decree shall state what amount is due to the plaintiff and what amount is due to the defendant, and shall be for the recovery of any sum which appears to be due to either party. (2) Any decree passed in a suit in which a set-off or counter-claim is claimed shall be subject to the same provisions in respect of appeal to which it would have been subject if no set-off or counter-claim had been claimed. (3) The provisions of this rule shall apply whether the set-off is admissible under rule 6 of Order VIII or otherwise."
(3.) ON the basis of Rule 6-F of Order VIII and Rule 19 of Order XX CPC, it has been submitted that in a case where set-off or counter-claim is preferred, any balance which is found due to the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, the Court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance and the decree shall state the amount found due in favour of the plaintiff or the defendant. The submission, therefore, which has been advanced by the revisionist, is that it is evident that the counter-claim under Rule 6-A of Order VIII CPC is confined to the claim of amount of money i.e. to say in respect of a suit which is for recovery of some amount of money. In support of his contention, the revisionist has placed reliance upon Jaswant Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur, AIR 1983 Patna 132. It is a Division Bench decision where it has been held that a counter-claim is permissible only in a suit for recovery of money. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed upon Raman Sukumaran v. Velayudhan Madahavan, AIR 1982 Kerala 253. It is a Single Judge decision where it has been held that under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, counter-claim is maintainable even in suits other than for recovery of money.;