C.R. No.1727 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1727 of 2007 Date of Decision: 1.2.2008 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Nirmal Singh ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.D.C. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.S. Guliani, Advocate for the respondent. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner, impugns the order dated 4.12.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Rup Nagar, restoring the counter claim, filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction. The respondent filed a written statement titled as “written statement-cum- counter claim on behalf of the defendant”. In para 1 of the written statement on merits, while denying the averments in the plaint, the respondent/defendant averred as follows :- “Thus, this counter claim may be treated for removal of the wall raised by the plaintiff and for mandatory injunction to direct him to restore the wall at its original position.” The written statement contains a relief clause, which reads as follows :- “It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be C.R. No.1727 of 2007 2 dismissed and the counter claim of the defendant may be accepted and a decree for removal of the wall constructed by the plaintiff and constructing the same at its original position may kindly be passed in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff, with costs, in the interest of justice.” It is, thus, apparent that the respondent filed a counter claim and, therefore, assertions of counsel for the petitioner that no counter claim was filed and, therefore, the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to restore the counter claim, is incorrect. However, the fact, whether the counter claim was filed, in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 6 (A) to (G) and the claim raised therein was maintainable, whether Court fee had been paid etc. are matters, that would be open to the petitioner, to urge and assert in a written statement to be filed in respect to the cross-objection. With the aforementioned observations, as the impugned order does not call for any interference, the present petition is dismissed. 1.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE