Honble SAXENA, J. – Heard. Perused the impugned order dated 20th July, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge Senior Division No. 2 Ajmer, whereby he dismissed the petitioners appeal against the order dated 11.1.94 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and Munsif No.5 Ajmer whereby the petitioners alleged counter claim and the application under order 33 rule 1 & under order 8 rule 6 CPC were rejected. (2). In this case the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and recovery of an amount of Rs. 584.60 for electric charges in respect of the suit shop. The petitioner submitted a counter claim alongwith an application under order 33 rule 1 CPC alleging that he was the tenant of one Pan Kanwar, whose money was invested in the disputed shop, that on 28.2. 92 respondents father dis-connected the electric supply of the demised premises and that thereby he suffered a loss of Rs. 9000/- per month due to stoppage of his business. The petitioner estimated the damages for Rs. 1,53,000/-, but claimed damages for Rs. 25,000/- only by way of set-off/counter-claim. He also separately filed an application for permission under order 33 rule 1 CPC to file the counter-claim as an indigent person. The trial court rejected his application as also the counter- claim as an indigent person. The trial court rejected his application as also the counter-claim vide order dated 11.1.94 which was affirmed by the first appellate court. Hence this revision petition. (3). The contention of Shri Kapoor is that under order 8 rule 6A CPC, such a counter-claim was legally permissible and that the courts below have committed illegality in excluding petitioners counter-claim. To my mind, this contention is mis-conceived and it must abort. The underline principle of trying the suit claim and counter-claim together is to avoid mutiplicity of proceedings, but that does not mean that any and every claim can be so set up in any suit by mere reason of the identity of the parties. It is implicit that the counter-claim must necessarily concern any right or claim in respect of the cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing the suit and be such which can be set up against the claim in the suit. It is implicit that the counter-claim must necessarily concern any right or claim in respect of the cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing the suit and be such which can be set up against the claim in the suit. The words ``by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff followed by the words ``any right or claim indicate that there has to be some identity or action between the claim or between the causes of action enabling parties to seek redress. Totally different and divorced causes of action are, surely, not intended to be clubbed or grouped or could as such be tried in one suit. (4). In the instant case, the petitioner has not alleged any wrong action on the part of the plaintiff-respondent. On the other hand, he has denied plaintiffs status as his land-lord and contended that plaintiffs father Surendra Singh has disconnected the electric supply of the suit premises for which he suffered damages. Evidently for the act of Surendra Singh, the plaintiff-respondent cannot be held liable. Secondly, the alleged act of disconnecting power supply constitute an entirely new and different cause of action which has no nexus with causes of action for the relief of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as also electric charges. The defendant-petitioner has therefore no right under order 8 rule 6A CPC to file counter-claim for the damages alleged to have been caused by a person, who is not a party in this suit. Apparently it appears to be a transparent device of the petitioner to unnecessarily protract the proceedings of the suit. (5). Hence for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned orders passed by the courts below do not suffer from any vice or error of jurisdiction and, as such those do not call any interference. This revision petition therefore is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the courts below.