GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. BHAG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the 8th respondent had filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 from dispossessing them from the suit land or part thereof Respondents/defendants filed the written statement contending that the petitioner and the 8th respondent had trespassed into their land of an extent of 3 kanals and they are in unlawful possession. Thereby,they raised counter claim, in the written statement, for possession. The trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the petitioners, granted decree for possession of two kanals, two marlas and one biswas comprising survey numbers, mentioned therein. On appeal it was confirmed and the High Court confirmed it in R.S.A.No 1190/94 on May 18, 1995. Thus this Special Leave Petition.

(2.) The contention raised in the Court below was, that in a suit for perpetual induction, the respondents could not lay any counter claim for 1909 as amended in 1976 reads thus:

(3.) It is true that Rule 6A(a) was introduced by Amendment Act of 1976. Preceding the amendment is was settled law that except in a money claim counter claim or set off cannot be set up in other suits. The Law Commission of India had recommended, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, right to the defendants to raise the plea of set off in addition to a counter claim in Rule 6 in the same suit irrespective of the fact whether the cause of action for counter claim or set off had accrued to defendant either before or after the filing of the suit. The limitation was that the counter claim or set off must be pleaded by way of defence in the written statement or before the time limit for delivering the written statement has expired, whether such counter-claim should not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, by laying the counter claim pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court cannot be divested and the power to try the suit already entertained cannot be taken away by accepting the counter claim beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. Thus considered we hold that in a suit for injunction, the counter-claim for possession also could be entertained by operation of Order 8 Rule 6(A)(1) of C.P.C.