CRP 391/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr KR Surana, the learned counsel for the petitioner. After giving my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusing the materials on record , I am of the view that this revision petition can be disposed of at the motion stage without issuing formal notices to the respondents. The limited grievance projected by the petitioners in the revisi on petition is about the refusal on the part of the learned Civil Judge No. 1, K amrup to pronounce the judgment under Order 8 Rule 6(E) of the Code of Civil Pro cedure on the basis of the counter-claim filed by them, against the plaint file d by the plaintiffs/respondents. The petitioners, as defendants in the suit, fil ed their written statements together with their counter-claim against the plaint filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. When the plaintiffs/respondents failed to file their written statements against the counter-claim of the petitioner withi n the time prescribed by law, the petitioners filed the application dated 29.1.2 010 before the trial court under Order 8 Rule 6(E) of the CPC for pronouncement of the judgment. It appears that the respondents instead of seeking time for fi ling their written statements against the counter- claim, have chosen to file th eir written objections against the said application dated 29.01.2010 filed by th e petitioners. Since then, the trial court apparently adjourned the case from t ime to time without any apparent reason. Aggrieved by this, this revision petiti on has been filed by the petitioners. Order 8 Rule 6(E) of the CPC says that if the plaintiff makes default in reply to the counter-claim made by the defendant , the Court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the coun ter-claim made against him, or make such order in relation to the counter-claim as it thinks fit. In my opinion, this provision gives discretion to the trial c ourt either to pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the count er-claim made by the petitioners/defendants or to make such order with respect t o the counter-claim but there is no third way. A perusal of the order of the tr ial court will indicate that the trial court did not pronounce the judgment agai nst the plaintiff in relation to the counter-claim made against him nor did it m ake any order in relation to the counter-claim. It is thus obvious that the tri al court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law thereby war ranting the interference of this Court. In the result, this revision petition stands disposed of by dire cting the trial court to pronounce the judgment on the basis of the counter-clai m filed by the petitioners or to pass such order as it thinks fit in relation to the counter-claim filed by them on or before 08.10.2010. No costs