S. B. SAKRIKAR, J. ( 1 ) APPLICANT/defendant has directed this revision against order dated 18. 3. 1999 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class II, shujalpur in C. S. No. 117-A/98 thereby on application of the non-applicant No. 1 (plaintiff), the trial court rejected the counter claim filed on behalf of the applicant along with his written statement and held that the alleged claim with written statement shall be accepted only as written statement filed under provisions of Order 8, CPC. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that -originally a suit on behalf of the Srimurti radhakrishana Mandir was filed by one Pujari maniramdas as manager of the said temple for declaration and injunction with regard to the disputed land entered in the name of temple in revenue papers against respondents 2 to 4. During the pendency of the said suit, maniramdas expired and in his place name of mahant Narharidas was substituted as manager of the temple. Lateron an application was filed on behalf of the applicant for impleading him as plaintiff in place of deceased Maniramdas on the ground that he is the CHELLA of deceased Maniramdas and succeeds to the office of the manager of the temple. The application was dismissed by the trial Court. A revision was filed before this court and ultimately by the orders of this court, he was directed to be impleaded as defendant in the pending suit. ( 3 ) APPLICANT/defendant after his impleadment in the pending suit filed a written statement in reply to plaint allegation and also filed a counter claim seeking certain reliefs against the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4, co-defendant of the pending suit. An objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs that such a counter claim is not maintainable and it deserves to be excluded from the written statement. Learned trial court by the impugned order allowed the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiffs and directed exclusion of the counter claim from the written statement by the impugned order. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contended that the counter claim filed on behalf of the applicant seeking certain reliefs against co-defendant with regard to some property, is maintainable. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contended that the counter claim filed on behalf of the applicant seeking certain reliefs against co-defendant with regard to some property, is maintainable. He submitted that a counter claim filed on behalf of the defendant for all purposes may be considered as plaint and, therefore, trial court has committed an error in excluding the counter claim set up by the defendant from his written statement. A reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in case of Jagmohan Chawla and Anr. v. Dera Radha swami Satsang and Ors. ( 5 ) AS against this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the counter claim as set up by the defendant seeking certain reliefs against the co-defendant is not covered under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 (a), CPC and the trial Court has rightly ordered for exclusion of the counter claim from the written statement under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 (c) of the CPC. ( 6 ) I have considered rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also relevant provisions of the cpc. On perusal of provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 (a), CPC it emerged that -"a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleadings of a set-off under rule 6, set-up by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, and right or claim in respect of cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit, but. . . . "order 8, Rule 6 (c) CPC-"gives a right to raise an objection to the plaintiff with regard to the counter claim set up by the defendant that it ought not to be disposed of by way of counter claim but in an independent suit, plaintiff may at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter claim may be excluded, and the Court may, on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit. " ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid provisions contained in CPC in my considered opinion under Order 8 Rule 6 (a), CPC, a defendant has a right to file a counter claim only against the claim of the plaintiff for his right as set up in the plaint. A counter claim in the from of seeking reliefs against co-defendant can not be entertained under the aforesaid provisions in a suit filed by the plaintiff. It is true that the counter claim is to be treated as plaint by the operation of sub-rule (4) of Order 8 Rule 6 (a), cpc and governed by the rules of the pleadings applicable to the plaintiff. The aforesaid provisions only contemplates that counter claim shall be governed by the rules applicable for drafting of the plaint. But it cannot be interpreted that for all purposes it should be considered as new plaint and the reliefs can be claimed against the plaintiff as well as against co-defendants of the pending suit. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant could not satisfy me on the point that by filing a. counter claim a defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff, can claim independent relief against the co-defendant of the suit. ( 9 ) IN the result, I do not find that the trial court has committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order directing the exclusion of the counter claim filed on behalf of the applicant from the written statement filed on his behalf and no interference is required in the impugned order of the trial Court exercising powers under Section 115, CPC. On the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is made clear that the applicant shall be at liberty to file a seperate suit for the reliefs as claimed in his proposed counter claim, if permissible under the law. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition being devoid of any merit and substance, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed. .