In the High Court At Calcutta CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak CO/70/2025 SHRI REGGIE LAMA VS SMT. TARA SUBBA AND ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Singhal, Advocate Ms. Heena Yasmin Shaikh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Jorgay Namka, Advocate Mr. Debabrata Rai, Advocate Heard & Judgment on: November 18, 2025 Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Revisional application is directed against Order No. 57 dated February 27, 2025 passed in Title Suit No. 41 of 2019 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Darjeeling.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Suit No. 41 of 2019. In such suit, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a written statement containing a counter claim. He draws the attention of the Court to the counter claim filed by the Opposite Party No. 1. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, Opposite Party No. 1 made several allegations with regard to title to the immovable property concerned and enrobed various persons who are not parties to the suit. He points to the prayers made in the counter claim.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit. He submits that, Opposite Party No. 1 filed a civil suit being Title Suit No. 3 of 2025 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Gangtok. He points out that, the petitioner herein was arraigned as the defendant No. 5 in such suit. He also points out that, there are 10 defendants and one proforma defendant in Title Suit No. 3 of 2025. He also refers to the reliefs sought for in Title Suit No. 3 of 2025.

4. Referring to the reliefs prayed for by the Opposite Party No. 1 in Title No. 41 of 2019 through the counter claim as also the reliefs sought for by the Opposite Party No. 1 in the plaint being Title Suit No. 3 of 2025, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, at least one of the reliefs is a replica of the reliefs sought for by the Opposite Party No. 1 in her counter claim.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a possibility of conflict of judicial decision, if the counter claims in the suit being Title Suit No. 3 of 2025 are allowed to continue simultaneously. He contends that, the petitioner cannot be forced to contest two proceedings in two different fora. He refers to Order VIII Rule 6C and, submits that, the counter claim should be rejected.

6. Opposite Party No. 1 is represented.

7. Petitioner as the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction being Title Suit No. 41 of 2019. The title suit refers to an immovable property. Petitioner claims to be the owner of such immovable property.

8. Title Suit No. 41 of 2019 was filed against a lady who expired subsequent to filing of the suit. The original sole defendant was substituted by two of her children as heirs and legal representatives. Opposite Party No. 1 is one of them.

9. Opposite Party No. 1 filed a counter claim in Title Suit No. 41 of

2019. Opposite Party No. 1 contended in such counter claim that, Opposite Party No. 1 holds appropriate title to the immovable property concerned.

10. On the Opposite Party No. 1 filing the counter claim, petitioner before Court, applied under Order VIII Rule 6C of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned Judge by the impugned order rejected such application.

11. Order VIII Rule 6C of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is as follows :-

“6-C Exclusion of counter-claim- Where a defendant sets up a counter-claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter-claim may be excluded, and the Court