ORDER

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the order dated 06/03/2021, passed in Civil Suit No.58-A/2019 by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Badnagar, District Ujjain (M.P.) whereby the petitioners/plaintiffs' application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in respect of the counter claim filed by defendants No. 1 to 4 and 7 has been rejected.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction in respect of an agricultural land situated at Village Peerjhalar, Tehsil Badnagar, District Ujjain. The suit was filed on 21/04/2017, initially against the defendants No.1 to 6 only, and subsequently, defendant no.7 was also added. The written statement was filed by defendants No.1 to 3 on 09/08/2017, and since the defendant No.4 was proceeded exparte, his application to set aside the exparte order was allowed and he was directed to file the written statement, hence, the written statement was filed by defendants No.4 and 7 on 22/01/2021, who also filed a counter claim along with defendants No.1 to 3 on the same date i.e., 22/01/2021.

3. In respect of the maintainability of the aforesaid counter claim, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC contending that the counter claim filed by defendants is barred under Order 8 Rule 6A of CPC for the reason that the defendants No.1 to 3 had already filed their written statements and hence, they cannot be allowed to join in the counter filed by the other defendants. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the Trial Court holding that since the defendants No.4 and 7 had filed the written statement and the counter claim after they were given an opportunity to file the same, it cannot be said that their counter claim is not maintainable and it would also lead to multiplicity of the litigation.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Judge of the Trial Court is erroneous for the reason that the issues in the present case were framed on 09/10/2017 and even in their counter claim, the defendants have stated the date of cause of action to be 15/01/2021. Thus, it is submitted that since the defendants did not seek any leave to file the counter claim as provided under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC, it ought to have been rejected. In support of his submissions, Shri Pandya has relied upon the decision passed by this court in the case of Prem Narayan Vs. Ram Vilash reported in AIR 1992 MP 29 and in the case of Sainik Mining Allied Services Ltd. Vs. Northern Coal Fields Ltd. and others, passed in WP No.12016/2017 dated 03/07/2018.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court in rejecting the aforesaid application. It is also submitted that even assuming that the defendants No.1 to 3 were not entitled to file their counter claim along with defendants No.4 and 7 on 22/01/2021 as they had already filed their written statement on 09/08/2017, the counter claim would still survive in respect of defendants No.4 and 7 who had filed the same along with their written statement as they were directed to file the same by the Trial Court. In support of his submission, Shri Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon para No.35 to 37 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Govindji Trivedi Vs. Bakul Maganlal Vyas and others reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 1390.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the record, the chronology which can be made out is as follows:-