Prajapita Brahma Kumari ... vs Ramayan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8523 MP

                                                                  1
                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                           AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                                           ON THE 28th OF JUNE, 2022

                                                       WRIT PETITION No. 5926 of 2014

                                           Between:-
                                           PRAJAPITA BRAHMA KUMARI ISHWARIYA
                                           VISHWAVIDYALAYA         MANAGEMENT
                                           COMMITTEE      INCHARGE LOCAL   SEWA
                                           K E N D R A BRAMHA KUMARI JYOTI R/O
                                           BRAMHA KUMAR AASHRAM BEHIND STATE
                                           BANK OF INDIA SEONI POST SEONI TEH. A
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                                           (BY SHRI AKHILESH JAIN, ADVOCATE )

                                           AND

                                      1.   RAMAYAN SINGH S/O NOKHELAL BAGRI ,
                                           AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILL. LOO
                                           GHARWADA PATWARI HALKHA NO. 47/58
                                           REVENUE CIRCLE SEONI PART 1 (MADHYA
                                           PRADESH)

                                      2.   RAMKRISHNA S/O NOKHELAL BAGRI , AGED
                                           ABOUT    36      YEARS, R/O  VILLAGE
                                           LOOGHARWADA PATWARI HALKA NO. 47/58,
                                           REVENUE CIRCLE SEONI PART (MADHYA
                                           PRADESH)

                                      3.   SMT. SUNITA BAI W/O MADAN SINGH BAGRI ,
                                           AGED   ABOUT     33  YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                           LOOGHARWADA PATWARI HALKA NO. 47/58,
                                           REVENUE CIRCLE SEONI PART (MADHYA
                                           PRADESH)

                                      4.   SMT. SAVITRI BAI W/O NOKHELAL BAGRI ,
                                           AGED   ABOUT    60  YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                           LOOGHARWADA PATWARI HALKA NO. 47/58,
                                           REVENUE CIRCLE SEONI PART (MADHYA
                                           PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
  SAN


                                      5.   NOKHELAL S/O HUKUMCHAND BAGRI , AGED
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.06.29 10:56:50 IST              ABOUT      65    YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                           LOOGHARWADA PATWARI HALKA NO. 47/58,
                                                                        2
                                              REVENUE     CIRCLE     SEONI    PART (MADHYA
                                              PRADESH)

                                      6.      COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SEONI
                                              DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                                              (NONE )

                                            Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                                      following:
                                                                        ORDER

Despite the fact that SPC was issued to the respondents, nobody is present to argue the case on behalf of respondents.

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, assailing the order passed by the Trial Court on 20/12/2013 (Annexure-P-6) whereby the trial court has rejected the counter claim of the civil suit filed by the petitioner/defendant, mainly on the ground that the counter claim has been filed by the defendant against the co-defendant and the same cannot be filed.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, because trial court has committed an error in not considering the fact that the counter claim filed by the petitioner/defendant was not only against the co-defendant, but also against the plaintiff. He submits that as per the counter claim and relief claimed therein, it is clear that some of the relief claimed by the petitioner are also against the plaintiff of the original suit and therefore said counter claim was

Signature Not Verified maintainable and order of the trial court is contrary to law and accordingly SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA relief has been claimed that the said order be set aside. He has relied upon Date: 2022.06.29 10:56:50 IST

a judgment passed by this Court in (Mukund Lal Vs. Ghanshyam)

reported in 2009 ILR (MP) 3449. For ready reference para 12 is reproduced hereinbelow:

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has pressed reliance upon the judgments reported in the matter Udhavdas Tyagi (supra) Mukund Lal (supra) and Rohit Singh (supra). All these judgments on the point that the counter claim cannot be filed claiming a relief solely against co-defendant. But that is not the postilion in the present case. In the present case the counter claim is both against the plaintiff in the suit and the co-defendant. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rohit Singh (supra) has observed that the counter claim has necessarily to directed against the plaintiffs in the suit and alongwith it, it may also claim a relief against the co-defendant in the suit. Thus, filing of counter claim and claiming of relief against the co-defendant is not barred under the CPC.

In view of the law laid down by the High Court and the fact mentioned in the case and the relief claimed by the petitioner in counter claim, I am of the opinion that the order of trial court dated 20/12/2013 (Annexure-P-6) is not sustainable and contrary to law.

Accordingly Petition is allowed. The order dated 20/12/2013 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the trial court is set-aside and Trial Court is directed to accept the counter claim of the petitioner and proceed further in

the civil suit.

Signature Not Verified SAN

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.06.29 10:56:50 IST JUDGE sushma

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.06.29 10:56:50 IST