1 35 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.94/2008. Smt. Nasim Begum & Ors. Vs. Atta Mohd. & Ors. Date of Order :: 15th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.K. Thanvi, for the petitioners. ..... BY THE COURT: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.01.2008 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) City North, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 35/2003 rejecting the application moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejection of the counter-claim as taken by the defendants. It is noticed from the impugned order that the submission was made before the learned Trial Court that the counter-claim by the defendants was not falling within the purview of Order VIII Rule 6 CPC and the relief sought for could be obtained by filing a separate suit. It was also contended that the cause of action in relation to the counter- claim was said to have arisen on 25.02.2003 whereas the plaint was presented on 14.02.2003 and, therefore, according 2 to the plaintiffs, the counter-claim was impermissible for being related to the cause of action arising after filing of the suit. The learned Trial Court has referred to the provisions of law applicable to the case and has pointed out that the matter would be covered by the provisions contained in Rule 6-A of Order VIII CPC and not Rule 6 of Order VIII and under Rule 6A, the defendant, in addition to his right of pleading a set off could set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to him against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit before delivering of the defence. The learned Trial Court has observed that the provisions of Rule 6-A of Order VIII CPC would cover the counter claim and has, accordingly, rejected the contention of the plaintiffs and dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the counter-claim. Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs attempted to argue that the counter-claim as taken by the defendants is in relation to the properties that are not even the subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiffs and then, the counter-claim suggestive of acquiring title in relation to House No.451 is fundamentally barred in view of the operation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. 3 It is noticed that the arguments that are sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court were not placed for consideration before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show a copy of the application as moved by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court that has been decided by the impugned order. Learned counsel, in all fairness, submitted that such contentions were of course not urged before the learned Trial Court. So far the contentions as urged before the learned Trial Court are concerned, the same were obviously contrary to the ambit and operation of Rule 6A of Order VIII CPC; and the learned Trial Court cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the same. No other contention having been urged, the order dated 15.01.2008 cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the contentions urged before this Court were of course not urged before the learned Trial Court but the petitioners may be given liberty to make such submissions and to urge such contentions before the learned Trial Court. It goes without saying that if such contentions are urged before the learned Trial Court, the same are to be dealt 4 with in accordance with law by the learned Trial Court. So far the subject matter of this revision petition is concerned, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order dated 15.01.2008 and, accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI ), J. Mohan/