IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.71 of 2007 Date of Decision: 27.5.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Sh.Krishan Lal … Petitioner Versus Smt.Ganga Devi and others … Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal panwar, counsel for R-1. Mr.Janesh Gupta, counsel for R-2. Mr.G.S.Rathore, counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 9. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral ). This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Solan dated 9.5.2007 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No.1) under Order 8 Rule 6 CPC for striking off the counter claim of defendant No.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt.Ganga Devi filed a suit against the petitioner Krishan Lal and Man Singh. Later on one Ramesh Chand who had derived title from the defendant Man Singh was also impleaded as defendant No.3. According to the plaintiff she is the 2 daughter of Smt.Vidya Devi widow of Shri Shankar and defendant No.2 is her brother and she and defendant No.2 are the only natural heirs of deceased Vidya Devi entitled to inherit the suit land in equal shares. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement in which he alleged that he was also the son of Smt.Vidya Devi from the loins of Sh.Shankar and the natural heir of Vidya Devi and Shankar. However, according to him he had been adopted by Daulat Ram @ Daulia real brother of Shankar and therefore in the record he was shown as the son of Daulat Ram. According to him being the natural heir of Shankar and Vidya he was entitled to succeed to her estate. Further defendant No.1 set up a plea that Smt.Vidya Devi had executed a Will on 17.8.1996 whereby she had bequeathed her properties in favour of both the defendants Krishan Lal and Man Singh in equal shares. Man Singh in his written statement set up a plea that in fact the last will of Smt.Vidya Devi was dated 16.10. 1992 whereby Smt.Vidya Devi had willed her entire property in his favour. Defendant No.1 also filed a counter claim praying for a declaration that he alongwith defendant No.2 have succeeded the property of Vidya Devi in equal shares. On the other hand Man Singh defendant No.2 also filed a counter claim on the basis of a 3 Will dated 16th October, 1992 praying for a declaration that he is the sole heir of Vidya Devi. The case was contested on various grounds and various issues were framed. The plaintiff also amended the plaint. The defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex- parte. After a long time he moved an application for setting -aside the ex-parte order which was allowed and the ex- parte proceedings set aside. Sh.Romesh Verma, learned counsel for defendant No.1 has argued that the defendant No.2 by making a counter claim that he is the sole heir and owner of the entire estate of Vidya Devi has actually filed a counter claim in respect of the claim of defendant no.1 and therefore this counter claim cannot be entertained it being a counter claim inter se defendants. He contends that the defendant No.2 should be directed to file a separate suit to establish his claim qua the defendant No.1. In the given facts narrated hereinabove there is no merit in the contention of Mr.Verma. The plaintiff Ganga Devi filed a suit claiming that she and defendant No.2 have inherited the property of Smt.Vidya Devi in equal shares. The defendant No.1 i.e. the petitioner herein contested this and has also filed a counter claim. According to defendant No.1 4 Smt.Vidya Devi has executed a Will dated 17.8.1996 in favour of defendants 1&2 and bequeathed her property to both of them in equal shares. On the other hand defendant No.2 had set-up an earlier Will dated 16.10.1992 claiming that Vidya Devi had bequeathed the entire property to him. It is more than obvious that he is setting up this claim not only qua his co-defendant No.1 but also in respect of the plaintiff. This counter claim cannot be said to be a counter claim inter se the defendants only. Even otherwise I am of the considered view that the Rules of procedure should be interpreted in such a manner as to advance the cause of justice and reduce multiplicity of litigation. One sister and two brothers have been fighting this legal battle for the last 10 years. At this stage to reject the counter claim of defendant No.2 would be to defeat the cause of justice. Further more, all the parties are claiming their right to the estate of Smt.Vidya Devi. It would be in the interest of all concerned to have these disputes settled once and for all in one litigation wherein all of them are parties. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by defendant No.1. Needless to say that the defendant No.1 shall have a right to contest 5 the claim of defendant No.2 on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is therefore without any merit and is rejected with no order as to costs. May 27, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. PV