1 CRA NO.297/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2011 BHAMABAI MARUTI MALI VERSUS SOMNATH LALJI PATHAK AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Dhorde RN Mr.Milind Patil, Adv. For Respondent No.1 ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2) In Regular Civil Suit No.274/2004, below Exhibit-109, the revision applicant, as defendant, moved an application to return the plaint, as owing to the counter claim of the defendant, pecuniary valuation exceeds and consequently, the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahata, lacks jurisdiction. This order is questioned by the defendant. 3) Mr.Dhorde, learned Counsel for the defendant submits, there is no bar under the statute for the defendant raising a counter claim beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. This is contrary to the very scheme, as enumerated under Order VIII Rule 6-A of Code of Civil Procedure, which starts with :"counter claim by the 2 CRA NO.297/2011 defendant" and proviso thereof informs "that such counter claim shall not exceed pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the Court". Consequently, the learned Judge basically should not have entertained the counter claim. 4) That apart, written statement tendered with the revision only specifies in para 9 of the defendant seeking cancellation of sale-deed, which does not make out any prayer to segregate the written statement from the counter claim to brand the defendant as plaintiff in the counter claim. Consequently, virtually there is no counter claim on record. Allowing the defendant to remit court fee on the valuation, as he has made, that by itself will not indicate that the court has entertained the counter claim or acted upon it. It was with a different situation, the learned Judge even in the light of written statement, being on record, allowed deposition of the court fee. This is more than clear while perusing the order of the learned Judge dated 5.7.2004, when he allowed Exhibit-62 of the defendant to deposit the required court fee on Rs.1,26,000/-. 5) Reliance placed by learned counsel to the judgment in the matter of Varsha Boilers Pvt. Ltd.Bombay Vs. Yeotmal District Co-operative Cotton Seed Processing and Allied Industries Factory Ltd. - 1979 (0) BCI 58, will not be applicable to be coined, as the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in the said case dwelt upon the powers in the light of Sections 21, 22 of the Court entertaining such suits 3 CRA NO.297/2011 under the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869. The observations in the said judgment by learned Single Judge of this court, are not fitting to the facts of the present case. 6) Rejection of Exhibit-109, by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahata, does not call for interference. All points between the parties are kept open to be addressed and adjudicated by appropriate forum. 7) Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/