Mishra, J. -- 1. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2, Mukundlal and Bhagwan Charan have filed the instant writ petition aggrieved by order dated 12.4.2007 by which the counter-claim filed by defendant Nos. 3 to 11 has been allowed.

2. In the plaint the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have prayed that the disputed property is Joint Hindu Family property of plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 11. The plaintiffs are also having title and possession. Prayer has been made to dedare the sale-deed executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No. 15 and 16 to be illegal and void as against the plaintiffs. Further prayer has been made to declare the order dated 24.9.2005 passed by the Collector, District Chhatarpur to be ineffective. Counter claim has been filed by defendants No.3 to 11 for declaring the sale-deed to be illegal and void as against their interest which has been executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendants No. 15 and 16.

3. The trial Court vide order dated 12.4.2007 has overruled the objections raised by defendants No.1 and 2 that counter-claim could not be said to be maintainable inter se the defendants. The trial Court has observed that considering the nature of the suit defendants No.3 to 11 have the right to protect their interest. It has been considered appropriate to try the counter-claim along with the suit in the facts of the instant case. Aggrieved thereby the instant writ petition has been preferred by defendants No.1 and 2.

4. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, has submitted that from bare reading of provision of Order 8, Rule 6-A of CPC, it is apparent that counter claim is maintainable by a defendant as against plaintiff not against defendant, thus, counter-claim could not have been entertained at the instance of defendants No.3 to 11 as against defendants No.1 & 2 and 15 & 16. He has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Udhavdas Tyagi v. Srimurti Radhakrishna Mandir, Dehrighat [2002 (I) MPWN 31] and decision of High Court of Patna in Hem Narain Thakur v. Deo Kant Mishra and others [AIR 2000 NOC 23 (Patna) = 2000 AIHC 945].

5. Shri Avinash Jargar, learned counsel for respondent-defendants No.1 to 4,6, 7, 10 and 14, has submitted that even if counter-claim filed by defendants No.3 to 11 as against defendants No.1, 2 and 15 & 16 is not maintainable, as per the expression used under Order 8 Rule 6-A of CPC it could have been treated and tried as cross suit and decided along with the instant suit as precisely same relief has been prayed by plaintiffs for declaring the sale-deed to be void. Additional grounds have been raised by defendants No.3 to 11, thus, prayer has been made to treat the counter-claim as a cross suit and to decide the same along with the instant suit. In order to adopt aforesaid recourse he has relied upon the decision of the apex Court in Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala and others, AIR 1964 SC 11, decisions of this Court in Kartar Singh and others v. Kanhai Singh and others [1989 JLJ 461 = and in Bhamri Bai v. Ram Bai [1996 (I) MPWN 19].

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In order to appreciate whether counter claim inter se defendants is maintainable, we have to consider the provision or Order 8 Rule 6-A of the CPC. The provisions read thus:"6-A. Counter claim by defendant. -

(I) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right to pleading a set off under Rule 6, set up, 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 damages or not:

Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdi