ORDER
A.G. Qureshi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jhabua in C.S. No. 3-A of 1988 passed on 10-4-1991.
2. The facts leading to this revision petition in short are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a house situated in Megh-nagar against the present petitioner on the basis of the title of the house. The case of the plaintiff was that eight years before the suit the house was given to the defendant for his residence as licensee with a condition that the house would be vacated by the defendant upon demand by the plaintiff. Thereafter, it appears, that by a letter dated 30th May, 1980 the defendant offered to purchase the said house. But the plaintiff did not agree to sell the house and instead demanded vacant possession of the house. Thereafter after serving a legal notice the plaintiff filed the suit on 16-8-1988.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the defendant is not the licensee of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff needed a loan of Rs. 8000/- and offered to keep the house in question as security by way of mortgage and as a result Rs. 8000/ – were borrowed from the defendant by the plaintiff and the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit house in July, 1980 to the defendant. It was also agreed between the parties that the plaintiff shall not claim any rent and the defendant would also not be liable to pay any rent. It was further alleged that the plaintiff has also agreed to sell the house to the defendant at the price of Rs. 15,000/- and out of that amount, already Rs.8000/ were paid. Further an amount of Rs.4000/- was also paid and Rs.3000/-remained outstanding. As such the defendant was in the occupation of the house as a purchaser.
4. The defendant made a counter-claim for specific performance of the contract as provided under Order 8, Rule 6, CPC. An objection was raised by the plaintiff to the maintainability of the court-claim. The trial court, vide its order dated 10-4-1991 passed the impugned order holding that the defendant could not make a counter claim as made by him in the written statement.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Waghmare argues that the learned lower Court has erred in holding that a counterclaim for specific performance was not maintainable. The lower Court has wrongly held that a counter-claim can be made only in a money suit ignoring the fact that in Order 8, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure the words used are ‘a suit’ and not ‘money suit’. As such the order being illegal should be quashed.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Samvatsar states that the lower Court has passed the order following the decision of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in case of Jaswant Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur, AIR 1983 Patna 132 wherein it was held that the defendant has a right to make a counter claim against the plaintiff but that right is limited to cases involving money claim and the defendant is not entitled to any right or claim by way of counter-claim. On the other hand a single bench of this Court in case of Smt. Shivkali Bai v. Smt. Mecra Devi 1990 MPJR 412 has held that a cross-suit is really a weapon of offence and enables a defendant to enforce a claim against the plaintiff as effectively as in an independent action. It need not be an action of the same nature as the original action or even analogous thereto, even though the claim has to be one entertainable by the Court. The learned Judge has relied on a Kerala Judgment in Pathrose Samual v. Karumban Parmeswaran, AIR 1988 Kerala 163. The Supreme Court dictum in Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1395 has also been taken into consideration and after going into the provision contained in Rule 6A of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has come to a conclusion that the counter-claim is not restricted to money suits only. A counterclaim is substantially a cross suit.
7. On a plain reading of the language of Rule 6A of Order 8, CPC also makes it abundantly clear that a defendant has been given a right to set up any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff by way of a counter-claim and such a counter-claim can be made by the defendant on a cause of action which may have accrued either before or after filing of the suit. However, such a counterclaim can be made before delivery of the defence of the defendant or before the expiry of the time limited for delivering his defence. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6A of Order 8, CPC further provides that such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit both on the original claim and on the counter-claim and under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6A a right has, therefore, been given to the plaintiff to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant. In sub-Rule (4), it has further been provided that the counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the Rules applicable to the plaints. As such by the amendment Act of 1976 in the C.P.C. Rule 6A has been inserted especially with an intention to avoid multiplicity of suits and if different claims can be decided in one suit then it would lead to the avoidance of the multiplicity of the suits. Therefore, the learned lower Court has erred in holding that the counter claim can be made only in respect of money suits. The whole scheme of Rule 6A of Order 8, CPC does not speak of such a restriction as has been read by the learned lower Court in the aforesaid Rule.
8. In the result, I respectfully agree with the view expressed by the Single Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Shivkali Bai v. Smt. Meera Devi (supra) and consequently allow this revision petition. The order of the learned lower Court is quashed. Instead the Court is directed to entertain the counter-claim treating it as a plaint and afford an opportunity to the plaintiff to file written statement to the counter claim and thereafter proceed to dispose of the suit and counter claim. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.