THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4972 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21.08.2008, in I.A.No.2454 of 2008 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application ﬁled by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the counter claim, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein ﬁled the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and from, illegally dispossessing the plaintiﬀ. Respondent-defendant ﬁled written statement contesting the suit and also making a counter-claim praying for mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction and also recovery of damages in a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- and future damages @ Rs.20,000/- per day. Subsequently, it is stated that the plaintiﬀ ﬁled a memo (SR) No.3058/2008 seeking to withdraw the suit. On the said memo, the trial Court on 26.03.2008 passed the following order: “The plaintiﬀ in the present suit can withdraw the plaint in O.S.No.37 of 2008 unconditionally. Hence, the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2008 is dismissed as withdrawn. The oﬃce is directed to send the counter claim to the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and get it numbered as a fresh suit”. 4. It is stated that the suit was accordingly withdrawn and possession of the schedule property was also delivered to the respondent herein-defendant. When the defendant pursued the counter claim in respect of the relief of damages, the plaintiﬀ ﬁled I.A.No.2454 of 2008 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the counter claim. It is to be noted that the above order dismissing the suit as withdrawn and directing the oﬃce to register the counter claim has become final. 5. Order VII Rule 11 CPC contemplates rejection of a plaint on any of the four grounds stated therein. None of the said grounds is invoked in the present case. The only contention raised by the plaintiﬀ is that as the suit itself is dismissed as withdrawn the counter claim does not survive. 6. Order VIII Rule 6 CPC prescribes the procedure as to how any counter claim is to be dealt with. 7. The present application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is only misconceived as the said provisions are not attracted. It is open to the petitioner herein to oppose the counter claim and raise all grounds of contest, as are permissible under law in opposing the counter claim. The impugned order, dismissing the application ﬁled under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, does not however call for any interference. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 18th November, 2011. Tsy