THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4087 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Challa Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the undated docket order returning the counter claim, which was received by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, (‘Trial Court’), in O.S.No.55 of 2022 pending on its file.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the suit in O.S.No.55 of 2022 was filed by respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession against the revision petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/defendants. In said suit, the revision petitioner herein/defendant No.2 filed a petition herein Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. with a prayer to receive her counter claim and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 01.02.2024. Thereafter, the successor Presiding Officer of the Trial Court vide undated docket order returned the counter claim by passing the following order:

“My predecessor had received the application u/O.8 R.9, OVI R.17, along with counter claim upon perusal of the record it appears that the suit is filed for partition & separate possession and the defendants had filed their detailed counters along with w/s seeking 1/4^th share in the suit schedule properties.

As in the suit for partition & separate possession each party is a plaintiff and they had liberty to prove their case and it can be decided on the same by evidence. Hence no separate counter claim needed to adjudicate the matter. Hence the same petitions are returned.”

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has taken objection to the order of the successor Presiding Officer suo motu returning the counter claim, which was taken on record by his predecessor. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed solely on the ground that once the counter claim is taken on record by one Presiding Officer, his successor cannot return the same and that too suo motu.

5. While so, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 herein referred to the written statement of the revision petitioner filed before the Trial Court at paragraph No.12, wherein there is a pleading to the effect that defendant No.2/the revision petitioner is claiming 1/4^th undivided share in the suit schedule property. In effect, retaining counter claim on record or returning it would not have any prejudicial effect on either of the parties. Even in the absence of the counter claim, the share of the revision petitioner has to be determined while passing preliminary decree.

6. A perusal of the docket order passed by the successor Presiding Officer shows that the reason given for returning the counter claim is that every party to a suit for partition is a plaintiff and have liberty to prove their claim and there is no need for counter claim. However, in absence of any petition, there was no occasion for the successor Presiding Officer to return the counter claim. Further, in the event respondent No.1 herein is not pressing the suit for partition for any reason, the revision petitioner herein intends to press for his case through counter claim. The said eventuality though improbable cannot be ruled out as such the revision petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for.

7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned undated docket order returning the counter claim filed by the revision petitioner. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. The Registry is directed to return the counter claim as well as the original documents filed by the revision petitioner to learned counsel for the revision petitioner after replacing the same with photocopies of the said documents. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________

RENUKA YARA, J Date: 18.11.2025 GVR