IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 489 OF 2007 SHRI. RAMESH GOVIND PRABHU AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. ANTHONY REBELLO AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 16th February, 2008 P.C.: Heard Shri Shirodkar, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on behalf of petitioner no. 1 who is defendant no.3 in C.S. No. 64 of 2005. This petition has not been signed by any one on behalf of the petitioner no.2. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17/02/2007 of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao. 3. It appears that defendant no.1 had filed a complaint against the plaintiff at Quepem police station, which resulted in filing C.C. No. 79/S/2003/A, before the learned JMFC at Quepem, which then ended in acquittal by judgment dated 30/08/2004, and after the said judgment, the plaintiff filed the suit No. 64/2005 on 17/12/2005 for malicious prosecution. 4. The defendant no.3 filed a W.S. on 19/06/2006 and raised a counter claim. However, in the said counter claim, defendant no.3 did not state any thing as to when cause of action for filing the said counter claim arose in favour of defendant no.3. It appears that the defendant no.3 by virtue of the said counter claim is claiming certain future expenses which he would be required to pay for defending the said civil suit. The learned trial Court by the impugned order has excluded the said counter claim observing that the cause of action for filing the counter claim will arise in favour of the defendants only upon the failure of the plaintiff to prove his claim in the said suit. The learned trial Court has also observed that at this stage, it would be premature for the defendants to file the said counter claim, just by presuming that the present suit tantamounts to malicious prosecution. In my view, and considering the facts of the case, the exclusion of the counter claim raised by defendant no.3 could not be faulted. 5. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH