Only object is to reduce pendency of cases.

1. Aggrieved by an order dated 19.6.2001 made in I.A.No.4658 of 2001 in O.S.No.2764 of 2001 on the file of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, refusing to permit the revision petitioner/defendant to raise a counter claim by way of an additional written statement in the suit in O.S.No.2764 of 2001, laid by the respondent/plaintiff for a permanent injunction against the revision petitioner/defendant by restraining them from disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent/plaintiff, the defendant has preferred the above revision.

2. In brief, the respondent/plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, which was said to have been purchased by him under a sale deed dated 10.7.1972, on which basis, he seeks a permanent injunction as prayed for.

3. But the suit was originally resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant, who filed the original written statement in February, 2001, contending that the suit property was purchased under the sale deed dated 10.7.1972 out of the income derived from the property allotted by the Government to the respondent/plaintiff and the revision petitioner/defendant, who are father and eldest son respectively, who are repatriates from Burma, settled at Chennai, and therefore, the revision petitioner/defendant is entitled to one-fourth share in the suit property.

4. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/defendant filed an additional written statement, raising a counter claim for declaration of one-fourth share and sought permission to file an additional written statement in I.A.No.4658 of 2001; but the same was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff, contending that the revision petitioner/defendant is not entitled to raise a counter claim in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

5. The learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by decree and order dated 19.6.2001 made in I.A.No.4658 of 2001 in O.S.No.2764 of 2001, accepted the case of the respondent/plaintiff and refused to permit the revision petitioner/defendant to file an additional written statement for a counter claim, as referred to above. Hence, the above revision.

6. Mr. C. Thanaseelan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench in Raman Sukumaran v. Velayudhan Madhavan, AIR 1982 Ker.253, contends that the revision petitioner/defendant is entitled to raise a counter claim in the suit property on payment of sufficient Court fee, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

7. Per contra, Mr.J.G.Kanagaraj, placing reliance on the decision in Jashwant Singh v. Darshan Kaur, AIR 1983 Pat. 132, contends that the revision petitioner/ defendant is not entitled to raise a counter claim in a suit for permanent injunction, as the right under Order VIII Rule 6-A and Order XX Rule 19 is applicable only in a suit for money claim.

8. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

9. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Order VIII Rule 6-A and Order XX Rule 19, which read as follows:

" Order VIII Rule 6-A:

Counter-claim by defendant.— (1) a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a setoff under Rule 6, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damag es or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

(2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim