IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 6573 of 2025 SHYAMSWAROOP AGRAWAL Versus KESHAV PREMI AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Ankur Mody - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri yogesh Singhal- Advocate for respondent no. 1.

Shri Shankar Dayal Mishra- Advocate for respondents no. 3 to 8, 12 and

13.

RESERVED ON: 05/03/2026 ORDER PASSED ON: 17/03/2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

Petitioner has filed this misc. petition challenging the order dated

15/5/2024 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guna in Civil Suit No.126-A/2018, whereby, learned trial Court refused to take on record the counter claim filed by him. He has also challenged the order dated 16/9/2025 passed by Sixth District Judge, Guna in MCA No.42/2024, whereby, petitioner's appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC has been dismissed.

2. To understand the controversy involved in this case, the facts, in short, are that one Brijlal had three sons, Surajbhan, Mangilal and Babulal. Plaintiffs, Gopal Krishan Premi and Ballabhdas, as also the initial defendants no.1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Shri Surajbhan. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the initial defendants seeking declaration of their title in respect of a house named as Premi House (Pahla Padav), Jaistambh Chauraha, A.B. Road, Guna.

3. The defendant no.7 to 15 are the legal heirs of Babulal, who were not initially impleaded as party in the civil suit. They have been impleaded subsequently under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Petitioner- Shyam Swaroop Agrawal is one of the sons of Babulal and is defendant no.8 in the civil suit. 4. The petitioner/defendant no.8 alongwith defendant no.9 filed their written statement alongwith the counter claim on 18/4/2024. Pertinently, the counter claim was in respect of certain properties which are situated at village Ruthiyai, District Guna. In the counter claim, they have prayed for a decree of partition and declaration of title. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the counter claim on the ground that defendant no.8 & 9 have failed to plead specifically the cause of action for filing the counter claim. It is further alleged that counter claim in relation to the property which is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is not maintainable. The defendant no.8 & 9 filed reply to the application and prayed for rejection of the same. They averred that the counter claim is filed in accordance with law.

5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 15/5/2024 (Annexure P/2) allowed the application and rejected the counter claim filed by defendant no.8 & 9. The defendant no.8/petitioner alone challenged the order of learned Trial Court by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC, which also suffered dismissal vide another order dated 16/09/2025. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present misc. petition challenging these two orders passed by learned Trial Court and Appellate Court.

6. Challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court erred in rejecting the counter claim on the ground that the properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of the Court. It is his submission that in a suit for partition, joint properties of the parties are required to be included even though some of such properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of the Court. In support of this submission he relied upon the provisions of Section 17 of the CPC. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs are obliged to include all the joint properties in the suit itself, however, intentionally they did not include the properti