JUDGMENT - RATNAPARKHI M.S., J.:—The order passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola on 31-10-1988 rejecting the defendant's application for amendment of his written statement is challenged in this revision.

2. The plaintiff landlord (the present respondent) instituted a suit for eviction against his tenant-defendant (present petitioner). That suit is pending before the Civil Judge empowered under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The defendant has already filed his written statement. However, on 26-9-1988 the defendant filed an application for amendment. By this amendment he wants to make out a counter-claim. He wants to claim a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff, his servants, relatives, friends etc. from creating any sort of obstruction in the user of the road by the defendant for all purposes including by bringing and taking out loaded carts, trucks etc.

3. This amendment was opposed by the other party. The trial Court, on hearing both the parties rejected this amendment. The reason for rejecting the claim was that the suit was pending before the Court of Small Cause and section 7 of the Small Cause Courts Act does not empower the Small Causes Court to grant any injunction. According to the trial Court when the Court taking seisin of the case was not empowered to grant an injunction there was no scope for allowing the amendment introducing the counter claim of injunction. The application was rejected on this ground. It is this order which is challenged in this revision.

4. Mr. Chandurkar, learned Advocate for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the revision is not maintainable either under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. What he urged was that the revisional jurisdiction flowing from both these provisions is restricted to the case which has been decided by the sub-ordinate Court. It is interesting to note at this stage that both these sections do not refer only to the decrees but also to the orders. There are some orders which have a tendency to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties. Some orders may be purely interlocutory orders having no such tendency. The orders of the first type make a special category of themselves and there is law that has been developed so far that these orders are subject to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. In view of this it is difficult to accept the arguments that the order in challenge being only an interlocutory order it is not susceptible to revisional jurisdiction of the Court.

5. Mr. Chandurkar, however, urged that even section 7(b) does not extend the operation of section 115 to the Small Cause Court. There is no doubt a force on this argument. But, it must be pointed out at this stage that section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is a provision which is very much a part of that statute which vests revisional jurisdiction in the High Court. Interlocutory orders which have a tendency to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties, become susceptible to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This Court, therefore, is competent to entertain this revision. The order challenged is thus susceptible to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Coming to the merits Mr. Mehadia, learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuously urged before me that the trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting the application for amendment. He strenuously urged before me that a counter claim has been recognised by the Civil Procedure Code and the intention in granting this recognition was to check the multifariousness of suits. The intention behind Order 8 may be laudable. But Order 8 does impose some limitations on the counter claim. I shall come to these restrictions a bit later.

7. To repeat it once again the original suit was brought by the plaintiff-landlord against his tenant-defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document