IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2231 of 2006 EASHANUL HAQUE, S/o late Noor Mohammad @ Noori R/o Mohalla Bhadauni Sharif, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada … Defendant no. 1… Petitioner Versus 1. SHAHNAZ BANO, W/o Md. Jamaluddin, D/o late Noor Mohammad @ Noori/, R/o Mohalla Panchaiti Akhara, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya 2. Md. Khurshid Alam, Son of late Noor Mohammad @ Noori Mohalla Bhadauni Sharif, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada ….. Plaintiff …. Opposite Parties 3. Md. Raunaque @ Raunaque Eshan, late Noor Mohammad @ Noori 4. Manawar Sultana, Wife of Wasit Jawed , D/o late Noor Mohammad @ Noori, Mohalla Bhadauni Sharif, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada 5. Umraquiba Khatoon, Wife of Isalumul Haque, R/o of Mohalla Moghla Khar, P.S. and District Nawada 6. Bibi Mehrunissa, widow of late Noor Mohammad @ Noori R/o Mohalla Bhadauni Sharif, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada …. Defendants …. Opposite Parties For the petitioner: M/s Binod Kumar Singh, Hans Raj, Advocates For O.P. No. 2 to 6: M/s Saneev Kr. Mishra Ram Pravesh Kumar, Advocates ------ 4 24.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party nos. 3 and 6. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit appending therewith the written statement. - 2 - It is jointly stated that the main contest with regard to the issue concerned is between these opposite parties and the petitioner, therefore, other opposite parties are not necessary to be heard. It is jointly urged that this matter be disposed of at this stage after hearing the appearing opposite parties. This revision is directed against the order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Sub-Judge, II, Nawada, in Title Suit No. 130 of 2002, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to raise counter claim as mentioned in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the written statement and the same was directed not to be read during the trial. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in paragraph no. 24 the petitioner has not raised any counter claim rather he has merely made averments regarding his case and, thus, it may be accepted as part of his pleading. In part of the paragraph 25 also, it is a stand of the petitioner, that he has stated about his case which could be accepted as his pleading. However, he agrees that in the next part of paragraph 25, it is stated that he is raising this issue as a counter claim. The petitioner submits that - 3 - aforesaid averments in paragraph no. 24 and 25 directed to be read as a pleading of the petitioner in his written statement, however, he may not be allowed to raise the issue as counter claim. I, thus, proposed to consider and dispose of this revision at this stage. Learned counsel for opposite parties nos. 3 and 6 also agrees that paragraph no. 24 and part of paragraph 25 could be allowed to be read as pleading/written statement of the petitioner. However, petitioner cannot be allowed to raise this issue as his counter claim. In view of the aforesaid joint submission on behalf of the parties this consent order is being passed. This Court directs that the paragraph 24 (entire) and paragraph 25 (in part) of the written statement, except the sentences by which the petitioner has raised counter claim, would be read as pleading of the defendant – petitioner during course of trial. However, the same would not be allowed to be considered as a counter claim. It is further clarified that the part of paragraph 25, wherein the defendant – petitioner has stated that the issue be allowed to - 4 - be raised as counter claim, would not be allowed to be read during trial. Thus, the impugned order dated 18.9.2006 is modified to aforesaid extent. However, since the counter claim has been refused to be raised in this suit, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail other remedy available in the law, which, if availed, would be decided by the concerned Court in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation and direction this civil revision is disposed of. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)