JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated December 16, 2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bidhannagar, in Title Suit No.63 of 2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the order by which the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated October 5, 2020 filed by the defendant was allowed on contest. The petitioner contended that the counter-claim sought to be incorporated in the written statement by way of an amendment of the written statement was not maintainable in the eye of law. Thus such portion of the order impugned suffered from jurisdictional error.

2. The first contention of the petitioner was that the counter-claim was not properly valued. The first prayer for declaration in the counter-claim that the defendant was entitled to get recovery of possession, was barred by law, in view of the fact that a relief for declaration without any prayer for recovery of possession was hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was further contended that had the reliefs in the counter-claim been correctly stated and valued, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bidhannagar would not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the said suit and the counter-claim. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the counter-claim could not be entertained in view of the fact that the defendant could not have valued the counter- claim as one for eviction of a trespasser but as a suit for eviction of a licensee, when admittedly, the defendant had acknowledged throughout the body of the written statement that the plaintiff was a licensee. The counter- claim was under-valued and the prayers were also barred by law. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:- Mehar Chand Das vs. Lal Babu Siddique & Ors. reported in (2007) 14 SCC 253, Nellimarla Jute Mills Company Ltd. vs. Rampuria Industries and Investments Ltd. reported in CAL LJ 2000(2) 70, Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., reported in AIR (SC)(Civ) 1571 and Vinay Krishna vs. Keshav Chandra and Anr., reported in 1993 Supp 3 SCC 129.

3. Mrs. Sohini Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted that at the time of consideration of the amendment of the written statement for incorporation of the counter-claim, the learned Court was not required to go into the merits of the counter-claim. The amendment was rightly allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as the issues involved in the plaint and the counter-claim could be disposed of in one suit. She further submitted that, whether the counter-claim was barred by law or whether the learned trial court had lost its pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and the counter-claim, were issues to be decided at a later stage and the petitioner was always at liberty to raise these objections in the written statement to be filed in response to the counter- claim. She further submitted that the suit was one for eviction of a trespasser as the licence granted to the petitioner was neither revoked nor terminated. Her contention was that the licence expired due to efflux of time and the petitioner continued to reside in the premises as a trespasser without handing over possession of the suit property even after the period of leave and license had expired. She further submitted that the provisions of The Suits Valuation Act, 1887, could be invoked by the learned Court below, if the petitioners raised the point of pecuniary jurisdiction or under- valuation, at the appropriate stage. She relied on the decision of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani reported in (2003) 7 SCC 350 in order to urge that it was a well settled principle of law that a counter-claim could be filed by way of an amendment of the written statement and in this case, there was no illegality or material irregularity on the part of the learned Cou