IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 516 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.348/2010 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER ------------------- V.BALAN, S/O.VASU, 209, CHANDRANAGAR COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR P.O., PALGHAT-678 007. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DEVAKI, W/O.K.A.SUKUMARAN, PUDUPARIYARAM, EDATHARA P.O., PALGHAT-678 611. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.516 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4 th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.348 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff of Palakkad, challenges the order dated 11 th November, 2010 in I.A.No.1948 of 2010, by which the court below dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff for exclusion of the counter claim under Rule 6C of order 8 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner filed the suit for injunction restraining the respondent from evicting him otherwise than in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, he is the tenant under the defendant in respect of the premises in question and he contended that he is running a bakery therein. 3. The defendant filed written statement and contended that there is no landlord tenant relationship O.P(C).No.516 OF 2011 2 between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant is engaged in manufacturing bakery items in the plaint schedule building and the plaintiff is in charge of the affairs thereof. In short, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is the Manager of the defendant. 4. The defendant filed a counter claim praying for a mandatory inunction directing the plaintiff to handover the key of the building to the defendant. This relief is claimed on the basis of the contention that the plaintiff is not a tenant but he is only an employee of the defendant. 5. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.1948 of 2010 for exclusion of the counter claim. In the affidavit accompanying the application, various grounds have been raised. A perusal of those grounds would indicate that the contention of the plaintiff is that the counter claim is not maintainable. The court below held that there are no grounds for excluding the counter claim. It was also held that the counter claim is one which is maintainable O.P(C).No.516 OF 2011 3 under Rule 6A of Order 8 Code of Civil Procedure. 6. If the defendant were to file a suit for the relief which he has claimed in the counter claim, common issues would arise in the suit filed by the plaintiff and the suit filed by the defendant. The subject matter of the suit and the counter claim is the same. Parties are also same. In such an event, the court would certainly order joint trial of the suits, if separate suits were filed. As rightly held by the court below, the counter claim is maintainable. No grounds are made out for exclusion of the counter claim, as rightly held by the court below. No grounds are made out for interference with the order passed by the court below. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms