1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2000 Communidade of Pirla, By its attorney Shri Dottu @ Dayanand Ananta Fal Dessai Pirla, Quepem Taluka, Goa. .... Appellant V/s 1. Government of Goa by Forest Department, Panaji, Goa. 2. Communidade of Provincia De Balli through its Attorney Shri Dottu Fol Dessai, major, r/o. Balli, Quepem. 3. Shri Chandrakant Uttoma Chodankar, major, MLA Siolim Constituency, Siolim, Goa. 4.Shri Vinayak Dharma Chodankar, Major, r/o. Mollo, Panaji. 5. Union of India, Through Home Secretary, New Delhi. 6. Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji. .... Respondents Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 13/04/2010 JUDGMENT : Heard. 2 2. This First Appeal is filed by defendant no.7 in Regular Civil Suit No. 8/1984. There is no dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed for default. The said suit was filed, inter alia, against Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, being defendant no.1 in the said suit. In the said suit, the defendant no.7 raised a counter claim against the Government of Goa and the said counter claim came to be dismissed. The present appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the said counter claim. In Rohit Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand) & Ors. (2006(12) SCC 734), the Apex Court has stated that a counter claim directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained. The Apex Court has further stated that by filing the counter claim, the litigation cannot be converted into some sort of interpleader suit. The Apex Court stated in para 21 as follows; “21. Normally, a counterclaim, though based on a different cause of action than the one put in suit by the plaintiff could be made. But, it appears to us that a counterclaim has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it, it may also claim relief against the co-defendants in the suit. But a counterclaim directed solely against the co-defendants cannot be maintained. By filing a counterclaim the litigation cannot be converted into some sort of an interpleader suit. Here, Defendants 3 to 17 had no claim as against the plaintiff except that they were denying the right put forward by the plaintiff and the validity of the document relied on by the plaintiff and were asserting a right in themselves. They had no case even that the plaintiff was trying to interfere with their claimed possession. Their whole case was directed against Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and they were trying to put forward a claim as against the State and were challenging the claim of the State that the land involved was a notified forest in the possession of the State. Such a counterclaim, 3 in our view, should not have been entertained by the trial court.” 3. In the light of the above pronouncement of law by the Apex Court, the counter claim filed by defendant no.7 ie. the appellant herein was clearly not maintainable and, therefore, ought to have been dismissed by the Court below. 4. Consequently, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Needless to observe the appellant/defendant no.7 would be entitled to his remedies available to him in law. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-