2011 AIR CC 714 (BOM) ::2011 (1) AIR Bom R 119 ::AIR 2011 (NOC) (SUPP.) 203 (BOM.) (NAGPUR BENCH)

Bombay High Court ( Nagpur Bench )

(A) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) S. 6, O. 8, R. 6A— Pecuniary jurisdiction — Suit for specific performance — Counter-claim by defendant for eviction of plaintiff from suit property and for damages — Counter-claim cannot be only for balance of pecuniary jurisdiction left unexhausted by plaintiff — Defendant has to see only that counter claim does not oust pecuniary jurisdiction of Court approached by plaintiff — Suit and counter-claim are not to be clubbed together for purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction {" The counter-claim is essentially co-related with plaint claim and also at times warrants adjudication as an independent suit. Legislature has found it necessary to have such separate trial of counter-claim by same Court. Hence, this ceiling on and reference of pecuniary jurisdiction in proviso to O. 8, R. 6A to see that by filing a counter-claim, the defendant does not oust the jurisdiction of trial approached by the plaintiff. Said proviso does not envisage a counter-claim only for balance of pecuniary jurisdiction of concerned Court left unexhausted by the plaintiff or only if it is so left unexhausted. If arguments of Petitioner are to be accepted, it would be re-writing the legal provisions in O. 8, R. 6A, CPC. Pecuniary jurisdiction is required to be satisfied independently by claim made in plaint and claim raised in counter-claim. Court fee is also required to be paid separately on both. There is no questi....