Civil Revision No. 1976 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1976 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.05.2009. Satbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for the respondent ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for mandatory injunction for directing “for directing the defendant to got execute and attest the sale deed on the basis of agreement to sell dated 26/28.02.2005 extent upto 10.06.2005 regarding the land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.433/659, 660, 662, 1044/1443, 1444, 1445, 1044/1446, 1447, Khasra No.63//1/1, 62//21/min, 62//20, 21min, 25//10, 61//26, 61//2/2/1, 9/1, 12/1, 61//7/1, 4/3, 63//2, 61//5, 61//3/1, 7/3, 8, 13/2, 14/1, 61//4/1, of 3 Bigha 7 Biswa Pukhta (at the spot 10 Bigha Kham) situated within the revenue estate of village Mangwal, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.” Civil Revision No. 1976 of 2008 -2- **** During the pendency of the trial, the defendant- respondent filed a counter claim. The reply to the counter claim was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 4.3.2008. On that date, the plaintiff- petitioner applied for the dismissal of the suit as withdrawn. The request was allowed and the suit was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. However, the learned Trial Court passed an order entertaining the counter claim. It observed that “the defendant has got every right to file counter claim and the principle of suit is to be applicable to the counter claim and that will be proceeded like a suit.” Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner, argued that the learned Trial Court could not have allowed the entertainment of the counter claim, particularly when the suit had been dismissed as withdrawn. In support of the advocated view, reliance was placed upon Bollepanda P. Poonacha and another Vs. K.K.Madapa 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 150 and Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2508. The plea on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be negatived. The reasons therefor are as under:- It is not a case where the counter claim had been filed after the dismissal of the suit as withdrawn. In this case, it is apparent from the record that the counter claim had already been filed on a date prior to 4.3.2008 and it is only on that date the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. It will be further apparent, from a perusal of the interim order dated 4.3.2008, that reply to the counter claim entertainment plea was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on that Civil Revision No. 1976 of 2008 -3- **** date. The learned Trial Court appropriately observed that counter claim shall have to be tried as a suit. The reliance, placed by the learned counsel upon the above quoted judicial pronouncements, is misconceived. In Bollepanda P. Poonacha's case (supra) it was held by the Apex Court that a counter claim by defendant after passing a decree (for possession) was not maintainable. In Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya's case (supra), it was held that a counter claim is not entertainable when there is no written statement on record. In that case, the defendant had failed to file a written statement and had thereby forfeited his right to file it. In the present case, the defendant-respondent had indeed file a written statement. During the trial, the plaint was amended. No written statement consequent upon the amendment of plaint was filed. It would not suggest that there is no pleading on behalf of the defendant-respondent on record. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge