Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 20.6.98 passed by 7th Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No.286 of 1992, whereby and whereunder application filed by intervenor defendants opposite parties under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code has been allowed. 2. Before going into the disputed fact the genealogy is required to be reiterated for the purpose of coming to a just decision in the matter. One Baiju Mahto was the original title holder. He had several sons including Kewal and Banshi. The plaintiff Ramji happens to be son of Kewal, while original defendants are the heirs of lowest degree of another son Bhikhari. As per the plaintiffs version, Nagina the heir of Banshi died issueless and heirless and, as such, the plaintiff being in the higher decree than that of the defendants, the property belonging to Nagina had been devolved on the plaintiff by way of reversion. While the suit was at the fag end of trial namely after conclusion of evidence of both parties and when argument was heard from one side then the intervenor defendants namely opposite party nos. 24 to 27 came up with a petition on 19.11.97 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. contending for intervening inter alia that they happen to be heirs of another son of Kewal and that they have got interest over the suit property and hence they should be impleaded or should be allowed to intervene in the suit. Although objection was raised from the side of the plaintiff the said petition was allowed. No revision petition was preferred against the allowance of the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The added defendants filed written statement and curiously enough in para 12 of the written statement they have categorically stated that they have no interest over the suit property meaning thereby they denied the ground on which their intervention petition was allowed earlier under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. On receipt of copy of the written statement, the plaintiff filed a petition on 22.1.96 to strike down the names of defendants interveners from the suit as they are neither necessary nor formal parties to the suit. In the meantime interveners filed another petition under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alia that as they have got grievance regarding not giving proper share to them by the plaintiff in their father Kewals property, those properties should be brought within the suit and on partition by metes and bounds the intervenors interest should be separated and final decree should be passed on partition in respect of the property of Kewal. Serious objections were raised from the side of the plaintiff that defendants had got no scope to make such sort of counter claim when subject matter of counter claim has got no nexus with the subject matter of the present suit. Both parties were heard on the petition filed from the side of the plaintiff for striking the names of intervenors and also the petition filed by the intervenors under Order 8 Rule 6A of the C.P.C. and by the impugned order petition of striking down filed by the plaintiff had been rejected by single stroke of pen while allowing the prayer under Order 8 Rule 6A C.P.C. regarding counter claim of the intervenors- defendants. Hence this revision petition. 3. It has been strongly argued by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior counsel appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner that learned lower court has committed error of law in allowing the counter claim when the subject matter of counter claim has got no nexus with the subject matter of the present suit. His further submission is that the intervenors lost their right to remain as defendants in the suit on the basis of their written statement filed then there remains no scope for entertaining their counter claim treating them as defendants in the suit. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the intervenors- defendantsopposite parties has contended that no nexus regarding the subject matter of the suit is required while there is counter claim as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 6A of the C.P.C. Any claim arising against the plaintiff can be raised by the defendants by way of counter claim if the same is covered under all the ingredients and conditions as contemplated under order 8 Rule 6A of the C.P.C. 4. Before going into the question of nexus and others regarding Order 8 Rule 6A petition of the defendants-intervenors it is required to be decided first of all whether the defendants can be construed as defendants in the suit although their intervention was allowed earlier by the court below, in view of their written statement being filed in the suit. It appears from the circumstances of the case that at the fag end of the trial of the suit when argument from one side was complete then these intervenors had filed petition perhaps being set up by the original defendants of the suit claiming themselves to be heirs of Kewal who happened to be predecessor in interest of the plaintiff. The subject matter of the present suit is the property of Nagina, no other properties of the joint family or of other brothers of the original land holder are in question. Relief claimed to the effect that as the plaintiff remains in higher decree than that of the defendants then Naginas property, who died issueless should be devolved on him on preference to the original defendants. The property being inherited from Kewal being not subject matter of the suit, these intervenors- defendants had been set up by the original defendants, as submitted by Mr. Dwivedi, when after entering, into the suit having interest in the suit property, they filed a written statement to the effect that in the subject matter of the suit they have got no interest. By filing such written statement , defendants have practically non- suited them from the suit. In that way if such written statement stands then the intervenors had no right to make any counter claim as defendants in the, suit as by their written statement they had already non-suited themselves. If the interveners- defendonts had already non-suited themselves by not claiming the subject matter of the suit then there cannot be any counter claim by them as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 6A C.P.C, 5. Moreover, it appears from the wordings of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A of the C.P.C. that counter claim must have some nexus with the subject matter of the suit where the counter claim has been made. Moreover, it appears from the wordings of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A of the C.P.C. that counter claim must have some nexus with the subject matter of the suit where the counter claim has been made. I have already mentioned that Kewals property was not in any way connected with the present subject matter of the suit and the stand taken by the intervenors-defendants also is quite different from the nature of the suit. In that way also counter claim cannot be entertained in the present suit rather the intervenors-defendants can claim by filing a separate suit if they feel aggrieved in not getting property of Kewal. If the counter claim in the nature is allowed then practically all members of the joint family should again & be joined in the suit and the original subject matter of the suit will loose all its importance when the same came in the fag end of trial. 6. In that view of the matter the impugned order is hereby set aside and the revision petition is hereby allowed and in the circumstances no order as to costs.