1 wp9110.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9110 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9807 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.B. Gastgar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.P. Dhable, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. A.K. Maher, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd May, 2011 Heard Advocates Mr. Biradar for petitioners, Mr. Gastgar for respondent no.1, Mr. Dhable for respondent no.2 and Mr. Maher for respondent no.3, in both the matters. 2. In a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession filed by the respondent no.1, the present petitioners raised a defence that property was joint family property and sought partition. The suit was only in relation to one property and as the petitioners sought partition of all properties, they also added other parties and that 2 wp9110.10 counter claim was entertained by the trial Court. The original plaintiff then moved application under Order 8 Rule 6 C of the Civil Procedure Code for splitting of counter claim and by impugned order dated 09.08.2010, that application has been allowed by the trial Court. 3. Advocate Mr. Biradar for petitioner argues that the dispute about all properties can be resolved with documents to which the original parties are signatories and can be look into in only one suit. Respective other sides contend that the impugned order is in accordance with law. 4. The original suit is for declaration and for possession on the ground that property is separate or self acquired property of the plaintiff. The present petitioners tried to show that that property is ancestral property and along with it attempted to establish similar nature of the other properties. 5. Upon application moved by the respondent no.1- plaintiff, trial Court has correctly appreciated the controversy and directed splitting up the counter claim. It is to be noted that the present petitioners could have filed separate suit independently for grant of relief of partition and separate possession in relation to all properties. They have not done it. In suit filed by respondent no.1, the effort is to show that the alleged correct nature of the suit 3 wp9110.10 property and with it to expand the scope of consideration by incorporating other property. Order 8 Rule 6 C of Civil Procedure Court has been rightly applied to it. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence the Petitions are rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp9110.10