JUDGMENT :

1. The present Revision Application is filed by the Applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 17/09/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur rejecting the Application filed by the Applicants below Exhibit No. 50 in Regular Civil Suit No. 240/2021.

2. The facts giving rise for filing of the present Revision Application is as under:-

The Plaintiffs have filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 240/2021, inter-alia praying that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 – State Authorities should not grant police protection to the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 for taking possession of the Suit Property from them and further that the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 should be perpetually injuncted from taking forcible possession of the Suit Property. Since the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being the Government Authorities, the Suit is filed before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division as per Section 32 of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act. It is further contention that the Suit Property is an immovable property situated at Village Bembal, Tahsil Mul, District Chandrapur, however, the Suit was filed before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur.

The Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 & 9 filed the written statement along with counter claim claiming relief of partition of the Suit Property along with injunction restraining the Applicants from disturbing their possession over the Suit Property. There is no relief claimed against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is the contention that the counter claim would lie before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division and as the property is situated at Mul, the Civil Judge Junior Division has pecuniary jurisdiction so also territorial jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim.

In view thereof, the Applicants herein filed an Application (Exhibit No. 50) under Order VII Rule 10 for return of the counter claim. The Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 & 9 filed their reply. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the Application at Exhibit No. 50. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Application is filed by the Applicants.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in view of the Section 16(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, the counter claim for partition would lie before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mul within whose jurisdiction the Suit Property is located. It is further submitted that looking to the valuation of the counter claim, it ought to have been filed as a separate Suit before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mul. It is submitted that the Trial Court has misinterpreted Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code in rejecting the Application (Exhibit No. 50).

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 invited my attention to the written statement filed by them along with the counter claim. It is pointed out that the counter claim is integral part of the written statement and therefore there is no question of not making the State Authorities as party. It is vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is perfectly justified. If Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code is seen, the only limit which is prescribed is that the counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the Court, however, there is no bar to the Civil Judge Senior Division to entertain the counter claim. In fact, to avoid the contrary judgments passed in respect of the same property or same dispute, the provision of counter claim is there so that one Court by one judgment decides the same in one trial.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9, in support of his contentions, relied on the following judgments:-

“(a) Ussain vs. Muhammed reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Ker 230;

(b) Barthels & Luders Gambh vs. M.V. Dominique reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. at 728; and

(c) Ramjilal (Deceased by LR’s) & others vs. Narayan Singh reported in 1998 A I H C 1700;”

6. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, gone through the orde