1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4067/2007 Babu Lal Versus Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur, District Sikar & Others Date of Order :: 12th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Banwari Sharma for the petitioner Mr. Raj Kumar Jain for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court with a prayer that plaintiff may not be dispossessed by defendant from the rented premise during the pendency of the suit. The defendants filed their written statement alongwith counter claim with a prayer that not only suit should be dismissed but plaintiff may be restrained from decree of permanent injunction not to interfere with any additional premises other than rented premises and he should not interfere with the same. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 8 2 Rule 6 CPC to the effect that prayer made in counter claim is altogether different which cannot be granted by the same court, therefore, the counter claim may be separated and be tried separately. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 3rd May, 2007 which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that trial court has committed an illegality in dismissing his application and in not separating the counter claim from his suit. His further contention is that unless an application for eviction is filed against the plaintiff in respect of rented premise, the prayer made in the counter claim cannot be granted to the defendants, therefore, the counter claim ought to have been separated and be tried separately. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, impugned order dated 3rd May, 2007, the prayer of the plaint as well as prayer of counter claim filed by the defendants and after considering the same, I find that the reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application of the 3 plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 6 CPC is absolutely justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said order so as to interfere with the same while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK