JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioners in this writ application seek to challenge an order dated 22.12.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Salipur, in Civil Suit No.23 of 2005, by which order the learned Civil Judge, accepted the filing of a counter claim raised by defendants 5 to 7 (Opp.Parties 1 to 3 herein) against defendants 1 to 4 (who are petitioners in this writ application).

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in the present case since the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have and/or exer¬cised jurisdiction in a manner not permitted by law resulting in failure of justice and great injustice to the case of the present petitioners.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present case are that Opp.party No.4, as plaintiff has filed C.S. No.23 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Salipur and has implead¬ed present petitioners as defendants 1 to 4 in the said suit. Opp.parties 1 to 3 have been impleaded as defendants 5 to 7 in the said suit, wherein, the plaintiff has made a prayer seeking grant/declaration of easementary right of passage in respect of H. Plot No.329 belonging to the petitioners and H. Plot No.328 belonging Opp.parties 1 to 3. It is averred that the present petitioners filed their written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff (Opp.party No.4) whereas defendants 5 to 7 (Opp.parties 1 to 3) have filed a separate written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff. Further, in the said suit, three witnesses including the plaintiff were examined and cross-examined and at the said stage of the suit, defendants 5 to 7 filed a counter claim under Order 8, Rule 6A CPC claiming a right of easement in respect of H. Plot No.329 belonging to defendants 1 to 4 (Petitioners herein). That petition under Order 8, Rule 6A filed by Opp.parties 1 to 3 was contested and came to be allowed by the civil judge vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2007 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Opp.parties 1 to 3 (defendants 5 to 7) being co-defendants in the suit, they have no locus standi to file a counter claim against defendants 1 to 4 i.e. the present petitioners. In sup¬port of his contention, Mr. Das has placed reliance upon a judg¬ment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kulwant Singh v. Gurcharan Singh and others, AIR 2003 P & H 1, and a judgment of a constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Panna Lal v. State of Bombay and others, AIR 1963 SC 1516.

4. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for Opp.parties 1 to 3 while supporting the impugned order has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Lingaraj Sarat v. Akhaya Kumar Sarat and others, 2007 (II) OLR 374 (which was also relied upon by the trial Court) and submitted that a counter claim by one defendant against a co-defendant is maintainable. He submitted that by permitting the counter claim to be raised, the same land in question is also involved in the present suit, counter claim by the co-defendants in the present suit has been lawfully accepted since it would result in finally adjudicating the matter inter se between all the parties and has been allowed with the object of avoiding multiplicity of cases.

5. I have gone through the impugned order and the cita¬tions relied upon by the rival parties. The judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Lingaraj Sarat (supra) was passed in the context of a partition suit. In paragraph-10 of the said judgment, the contention that a counter claim by one defendant against a co-defendant is not legally maintainable, was consid¬ered by this Court by placing reliance on a decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Panna Lal (supra) this Court reiterated the observations made therein to the effect that in “exceptional cases cross-objection can be decided amon