The main legal point established in the judgment is that a defendant in a suit can set up a counterclaim against the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6-A and Rule 7 CPC.

Anil Kumar,J.: -

Heard Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for revisionists, Sri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel for O.P. No. 1 Sri Vinay Kant Shukla, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 & 5 and perused the record.

2. Initially, Sri Kunwar Krishna Dhaon (now deceased) and Dr. (Mrs.) Rashmi Dhaon, filed a Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, registered as Regular Suit No. 174 of 2006 (Kunwar Krishna Dhaon Vs. Udai Krishna Dhaon), pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court Room No. 20, Lucknow on 17th May, 2006.

3. During the pendency of the suit, Sri Kunwar Krishna Dhaon, died, as such, substituted by his legal representatives, namely, Avishkar Krishna Dhaon, Km. Shirsti Dhaon and Indra Krishna Dhaon.

4. On 25.10.2006, defendant No. 1 field a written statement and filed counter claim, therein with the following relief: -

"81. (sic) That the Defendant no. 1, by way of Counter Claim as provided Under Order VIII Rule 6(six) A CPC prays for the following reliefs.

1. Decree for possession in respect of one room and one Kothri situated on the second floor of house no. 33/A, Khun Khun Ji Road, Chowk, Lucknow as fallen in the share of the Defendant no. ! As per the Will dated 08.11.2012 (Eight November, Two Thousand Two) as stated in paras 69 above may kindly be passed in favour of the Defendant No. 1 against the Plaintiffs and their agents.

2. Costs of the Counter Claim may kingly be awarded to the Defendant No. 1 against the Plaintiffs.

3. Such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may kindly deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Defendant of No. 1 against the Plaintiffs.."

5. On 15.02.2012, the revisionist-plaintiff filed their objection to the counterclaim, after hearing the parties concerned in Regular Suit No. 174 of 2006, the court below by order dated 07.01.2013 has rejected the objection filed on behalf of the revisionist/plaintiff and directed the plaintiff to file their written statement to the counterclaim filed by the defendant No. 1. Aggrieved by the said facts, present revision has been filed.

6. Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for revisionist while challenging the impugned order submits that the impugned order dated 07.01.2013 is contrary to the provisions as provided under Order 8 Rule 6 read with order 8 Rule 7 CPC.

7. In order to elaborate the said submission, Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for revisionist submits that from the perusal of the written statement and the counterclaim raised therein the position which emerged out that the same is not in accordance with the provisions as provided under Order 8 Rule 6A(4), 6B and 7 CPC, so the court below has erred in entertaining the counterclaim which is not in conformity with the mandatory provisions provided in this regard under Code of Civil Procedure.

8. It is further submitted that the defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement and straightway stated in paragraph No. 79 regarding the accrual, the cause of action for filing counterclaim but no facts and grounds in support of the counterclaim have been stated in the written statement. In support of the said argument, Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for revisionist has placed reliance on paragraph No. 79 of the written statement, quoted hereibelow: -

"79. (sic) That the cause of action for the Counter Claim in the Shape of the Decree for possession in respect of the said room and kothri arose to the Defendant no. 1 when the Plaintiffs with the help of his agents took its forcible and illegal possession on 12.09.2005 as stated above after dispossessing the Defendant no. 1 therefrom and refused to vacate despite demands and the said cause of action for the Counter Claim continues to subsist against the Plaintiffs, in view of the facts stated hereinabove to the defendant no. 1 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as the said property lies within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Court."

9. Accordingly, it is