Aggrieved by the rejection of his counter-claim both by the Trial Court and by the First Appellate Court, in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C., the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession has come up with the above second appeal.

2. Heard Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.145 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, praying for eviction of the appellant herein from the suit schedule property and for future damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month. The case of the respondents/ plaintiffs in the suit was that the suit schedule shop was taken on lease by the father of the appellant/defendant way back in December, 2003; that subsequently the defendant took over the shop from his father; that the defendant committed default in payment of rent from April, 2015 and that therefore after issuing a quit notice dated 23-12-2015, the respondents/plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for eviction.

4. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement claiming that a lease agreement was entered into on 16-7-2005, in and by which, the lease was agreed to be extended for a period of 25 years and that therefore he was not liable to be evicted. In addition to setting up such a defence, the appellant/defendant also made a counter-claim by seeking a decree for the relief of specific performance of the registration of the lease deed dated 16-7-2005. The appellant/defendant admittedly valued the relief of specific performance made in his counter-claim and also paid Court Fee thereon.

5. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs appear to have made a request to the Trial Court to reject the counter-claim in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the Court below, by a judgment and decree dated 27-8-2016, rejected the counter-claim alone.

6. The said judgment and decree was taken on appeal in A.S.No.222 of 2016 by the defendant, but the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, the defendant has come up with the above second appeal.

7. The one and only substantial question of law arising for consideration in the above second appeal is whether a counter-claim can be rejected in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, especially in the facts and circumstances of this case.

8. The power of the Court to reject a plaint cannot be in doubt and the parameters are well set out in Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. Order VIII, Rule 6-A(4) makes it clear that a counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. Therefore, the applicability of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC to counter-claims cannot be ruled out in total. In fact, many High Courts have taken the view that Order VII, Rule 11 CPC is applicable to counter-claims also. This Court held so in Ananta Gas Suppliers v. Union Bank of India, 2007 (2) ALD 483. The High Court of Delhi took the same view in Karan Madaan v. Nageshwar Pandey, Manu/DE/0769/2014. In Mohan Lal v. Saukhi Lal, AIR 2003 MP 185 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a counter-claim can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.

9. But one question which none of the Courts seem to have considered so far is as to the circumstances in which or the conditions under which a counter-claim can be rejected by applying the parameters of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. If a counter-claim can be dissected into two portions, one comprising of the defence to the plaintiffs claim and another comprising of the counter-claim and the survival of one of which does not depend upon the other, it may be possible to apply Order VII, Rule 11 CPC with surgical precision. But where the defence to a suit and the counter- claim are joined in such a manner as Siamese twins, with inherent danger to the survival of the defence to the suit, upon the rejection of the counter-claim under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the Court would be doing something more than wh