IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.80 of 2007 RAVINDRA VISHWAKARMA @ RAVINDRA VISHWAKARMA @ RAVINDRA KUMAR VISHWAKARMA Versus JANARDAN SHARMA & ORS ----------- 02. 07.05.2008 This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendant no.2-petitioner challenging order dated 06.12.2006 by which learned Subordinate Judge, 1,Munger, allowed petition of the plaintiff dated 27.09.2006 in Title Suit No.114 of 1998. The aforesaid suit was filed by opposite party nos.1 to 7 for partition of the suit properties. The defendant-petitioner appeared in the suit and filed a counter claim raising the plea of eviction of the plaintiffs on the grounds of personal necessity and default. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs filed a petition on 27.09.2006 under the provision of Order VIII Rule 6- C read with Order II rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for exclusion of the counter claim. The defendant-petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 31.10.2006 to the said petition of the plaintiffs. The learned court below after considering the matter in detail found that the suit was brought for a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property claiming it to be joint property, whereas in the written statement the defendant had claimed it to be self acquired property of defendant no.1. Hence, there is a dispute with regard to unity of title and possession of the parties over the suit property which is the main issue to be decided in the suit. The learned court below has also found that - 2 - in his written statement the defendant-petitioner had made a counter claim regarding eviction of the plaintiff from the suit premises on the grounds of personal necessity and default which clearly has a separate cause of action which comes under the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has found the said counter claim made by the defendant cannot be allowed to continue in the said suit and the defendant will be at liberty to file a suit under the aforesaid Act for eviction of the person whom he claimed to be his tenant. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. sunil ( S.N.Hussain,J.)