IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that counter claims can be filed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, even after the written statement, as long as they comply with legal principles.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the orders dated 04.10.2023 passed by Principle Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon in I.A.No.783 of 2022 in O.S.No.515 of 2021, granting leave to defendant No.1 for filing counter claim in the suit.

2. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and respondent No.1 is the defendant No.1 in the Suit O.S.No.515 of 2021. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they arrayed in the suit before the Court below.

3. Brief Facts of the case:

3.1 Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.515 of 2021 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property i.e., an extent of Acs.7.36 guntas in Survey No.195/2, 196/2, 195/1/2 and in Survey No.196/1/2, situated at Kanchanapally Revenue Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Jangaon District. Plaintiffs in the said suit stated that they are the owners and possessors of Scheduled property and the same was purchased from defendant No.2 under Sada Sale deed dated 02.04.1992. Pursuant to the same, their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in their favour. Along with the said suit plaintiffs filed I.A.No.677 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908(‘CPC’ for brevity) seeking temporary injunction. Initially the Court below granted ad-interim injunction. In the said application defendant Nos.2 and 3 were remained ex-parte. The Court below after considering the contentions of plaintiffs and defendant No.1, made the interim injunction order granted earlier absolute and allowed the application I.A.No.677 of 2021 by its order dated 23.12.2024.

3.2. While things stood thus, defendant No.1 filed application I.A.No.783 of 2022 invoking the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking leave for filing counter claim. In the said application defendant No.1 stated that under the guise of interim injunction order the plaintiffs are interfering with his property to an extent of Acs.3.20 guntas in Survey No.197/1/ and the said land is nothing to do with the Schedule property claimed by the plaintiffs. He further stated the property claimed in the counter claim is the Government Assigned land for which he had been granted assignment patta as he is landless poor person and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and Revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his name. When the plaintiffs are trying to interfere with the said property, he lodged a complaint before SHO, Ragunathpally and the same was registered. The Court below after considering the contentions of respective parties and also considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing CDR.Surendra Agnihotri and others, (2020) 2 SCC 394 allowed the I.A.No.783 of 2022 by its order dated 04.10.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri C.Shanmukh Rao, learned counsel for Revision petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri M. Ratan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties in this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that application filed by the defendant No.1 seeking leave to file counter claim is not maintainable under law on the ground that the defendant No.1 filed written statement on 10.11.2021 and after expiry of more than six months filed counter claim and defendant No.1 ought to have filed counter claim along with the written statement, especially defendant No.1 has not mentioned the allegations made in the counter claim in the written statement and in the absence of any pleading in the written statement defendant No.1 is not entitled to file counter claim. He furth