A counterclaim can be made in any suit and not restricted to money suits only.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional judge to the Court of District Judge, Jhabua in C. S. No. 3-A of 1988 passed on 10-4-1991.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this revision petition in short are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a house situated in Meghnagar against the present petitioner on the basis of the title of the house. The case of the plaintiff was that eight years before the suit the house was given to the defendant for his residence as licensee with a condition that the house would be vacated by the defendant upon demand by the plaintiff. Thereafter, it appears, that by a letter dated 30/05/1980 the defendant offered to purchase the said house. But the plaintiff did not agree to sell the house and instead demanded vacant possession of the house. Thereafter after serving a legal notice the plaintiff filed the suit on 16-8-1988.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the defendant is not the licensee of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff needed a loan of Rs. 8000/- and offered to keep the house in question as security by way of mortgage and as a result Rs. 8000/- were borrowed from the defendant by the plaintiff and the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit house in July, 1980 to the defendant. It was also agreed between the parties that the plaintiff shall not claim any rent and the defendant would also not be liable to pay any rent. It was further alleged that the plaintiff has also agreed to sell the house to the defendant at the price of Rs. 15,000/- and out of that amount, already Rs. 8000/- were paid. Further an amount of Rs. 4000/- was also paid and Rs. 3000/remained outstanding. As such the defendant was in the occupation of the house as a purchaser.

( 4 ) THE defendant made a counter-claim for specific performance of the contract as provided under Order 8, Rule 6, CPC. An objection was raised by the plaintiff to the maintainability of the court-claim. The trial court, vide its order dated 10-4-1991 passed the impugned order holding that the defendant could not make a counter claim as made by him in the written statement.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Waghmare argues that the learned lower Court has erred in holding that a counter-claim for specific performance was not maintainable. The lower Court has wrongly held that a counter-claim can be made only in a money suit ignoring the fact that in Order 8, Rule 6a of the Code of Civil Procedure the words used are 'a suit' and not 'money suit'. As such the order being illegal should be quashed.

( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Samvatsar states that the lower Court has passed the order following the decision of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in case of Jaswant Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur, AIR 1983 Patna 132 wherein it was held that the defendant has a right to make a counter-claim against the plaintiff but that right is limited to cases involving money claim and the defendant is not entitled to any right or claim by way of counter-claim. On the other hand a Single Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Shivkali Bai v. Smt. Meera Devi 1990 MPJR 412 has held that a cross-suit is really a weapon of offence and enables a defendant to enforce a claim against the plaintiff as effectively as in an independent action. It need not be an action of the same nature as the original action or even analogous thereto, even though the claim has to be one entertainable by the Court. The learned Judge has relied on a Kerala Judgment in Pathrose Samual v. Karumban Parmeswaran, AIR 1988 Kerala 163. The Supreme Court dictum in Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1395 has also been taken into consideration and after going into the provision contained in Rule 6a of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has come to a conclusion that the counter-claim is not restricted to money suits only.