IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5560 OF 2008 Nandita Tukaram Dhindale ...Petitioner Versus Gitanjali Chetanrao Dhindale & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.M.M.Sathaye for Petitioner. Mr.Surel S.Shah for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sachin Pawar for Respondents 20 to 23. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JULY 29, 2008. JULY 29, 2008. JULY 29, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In my opinion, the Court below has rightly rejected the application preferred by the Petitioner/Defendant No.2E. The Court below has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rohit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now State Rohit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now State Rohit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) & Ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 734 of Jharkhand) & Ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 734 of Jharkhand) & Ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 734 = AIR 2007 SC 10 = AIR 2007 SC 10 = AIR 2007 SC 10. The Apex Court has held that : 2 : counter claim is not maintainable if it is directed solely against the co-defendants. 3. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on Bombay amendment. Even on perusal of Bombay amendment, the view taken by the Apex Court will prevail. Inasmuch as even the Bombay amendment with regard to provision for counter claim postulates that the counter claim should be essentially against the claims of the Plaintiff. Rule 15 of the Bombay amendment envisages that where the counter claim involves in addition to the Plaintiff, other persons also, that can be proceeded. On plain language of Rule 15 as applicable to Maharashtra, it essentially requires that the counter claim raises questions between the Defendant and the Plaintiff along with any other persons. 4. In the present case, however, on reading the application Exhibit 134 as a whole, it is essentially counter claim against the co-defendants. There is no counter claim against : 3 : the Plaintiff as such. On the contrary, the Application records that in the event the Court were to reject the case of Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.13 to 19, the Court may allow the counter claim of the Defendant No.2E against Defendant No.1. It is therefore not a case where the counter claim raises questions between the Defendant No.2E and the Plaintiff along with other Defendants which alone could be resorted to in terms of Rule 15 of the Bombay amendment. Hence, no fault can be found with the opinion recorded by the Court below in rejecting the Application as filed. Hence, rejected. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.