(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1337 OF 2011 Rasik Shantilal Kothari, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Advocate, R/o. Railway Station Road, Taluka : Vaijapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus Kiran Biridchand Kankariya, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Lasal Gaon, Taluka : Niphad, Dist. : Nasik, and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba, for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20-12-2010, passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vaijapur, below Exhibit 36 in Regular Civil Suit No. 221/2010. 3. By placing reliance upon some judgments and provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Adv. Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba contends that after filing of written statement, amendment thereto, to include counter claim for relief of injunction against the petitioner / plaintiff could not have been allowed. During the course of arguments he, however, accepted that a fresh suit by the respondents / defendants for such injunction is not barred by limitation. I find the situation is covered by the judgment delivered by me and reported at 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 728, in the case of Sheshrao s/o. Bhaurao Sable Vs. Ganesh s/o. Mahadeorao Sable and others, particularly paragraphs 7 and 9. 4. As fresh suit is not barred by limitation and the suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff is for injunction to protect his (3) possession, I find that no prejudice is caused to him merely because counter claim has been allowed to be added by the trial court later on. 5. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in this jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1337