:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 39 OF 2010 Mrs. Angelica L. Fernandes, r/o Bungalow No.2, H.No.201/2, God's Gift, Opp. Dr. Keny's Hospital, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. … Appellant V e r s u s Mrs. Antonia Michelle Abel, R/o C/o Mrs. Therezina Gonsalves, House No. 133, Mangor ( Down), Vasco-da-Gama and presently at Kishor Hotel, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. … Respondent Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE : 14 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 . ORAL ORDER Heard Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal preferred by :2: the respondent whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., filed by the appellant came to be rejected. 3. Mr. V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that in view of the fact that the respondent is claiming her right on the basis of leave and licence agreement which had already expired, the question of filing any counter claim in the year 2008 does not arise at all. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the respondent herself admitted in the counter claim that the leave and licence agreement had already expired in January, 2007, there was no subsisting right for the respondent to claim possession of the suit premises by filing such a counter claim. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the counter claim has to be read as a whole to ascertain as to whether any cause of action arose to the respondent to file such counter claim. When questioned as to whether the claim of the respondent is within the period prescribed under the Limitation Act, Mr. V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly accepted that the claim of the respondent to that effect was not barred by law of limitation but however pointed out that the First Appellate Court has erroneously exercised the :3: jurisdiction whilst passing the impugned judgment and as such the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it is the contention of the respondent that she has been dispossessed on 02.03.2006 when admittedly the leave and licence agreeement was subsisting. Apart from that, the suit was filed for possession and as such there is no bar for the respondent to file the counter claim if she is so entitled to claim such possession of the suit premises. The fact as to whether the respondent is entitled to such possession or if the respondent was at all in possession of the suit premises will be adjudicated by the Trial Court after the evidence is adduced in the suit in accordance with law. At this stage of the proceedings, there is no case made out by the appellant to reject the said counter claim under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, I find that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and has come to the conclusion that the application filed by the appellant had :4: no substance. The correctness of the contentions of the appellant in the written statement to the counter claim cannot be adjudicated at this stage without recording of evidence by the parties. As such, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the First Appellate Court whilst passing the impugned judgment. Hence, I find no merit in the above appeal and is as such rejected. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Judge on 14.11.2011 at 10.00 a.m. F. M. REIS, J at*