Judgment : This revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 1038 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller -cum-XVI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. .2. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction. In the said suit the defendants filed a counter claim for partition of the suit schedule properties into four shares and put the defendants in one such share. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 222 of 2007 under Order VIII Rule 6-C read with Section 151 C.P.C praying to exclude the counter claim made by the defendants as prayed for. The plaintiff is contending that he is in exclusive possession of the property. He filed the suit for permanent injunction and also obtained a temporary injunction. The defendants are claiming that the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession of the properties. Therefore, the properties are liable for partition. The plaintiff is contending that the filed the suit for injunction simpliciter. Therefore, the defendants cannot convert the said suit into partition suit by paying Rs.200/-towards .fixed Court Fee and if the defendants have got any right over the property they are entitled to file a separate suit. He further pleaded that as on the date of filing of the suit the schedule property is a Government land and they cannot seek partition as if it is a joint family property. When once the suit schedule property is transferred in the name of the plaintiff the defendants may file the suit for partition and as the defendants filed an application before the Collector opposing mutation in the name of the plaintiff, the counter claim cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is liable to be excluded. The plaintiff further contended that though the defendant filed written statement on 21-11-2005 he could not instruct the counsel to file rejoinder to the written statement within 90 days as there was a change of the counsel and he was made to roam around the Collector's office in connection with the regularization of the property in his name. The delay in filing the rejoinder is not wilful. Therefore, he requested to condone the delay of 190 days in filing the rejoinder. Otherwise he will be put irreparable loss. 2. 3. The delay in filing the rejoinder is not wilful. Therefore, he requested to condone the delay of 190 days in filing the rejoinder. Otherwise he will be put irreparable loss. 2. 3. The defendant No. 1 filed a counter in the application, which was adopted by the respondents 2 and 3 contending that the plaintiff alone cannot be a lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The defendants and the plaintiff are the real brothers and all four brothers are having joint possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, each brother is having joint right of 1/4'h share in the petition schedule property and the respondents have also paid part of the amount payable to the Government for regularization of the schedule property. The defendants have filed objections before the Joint Collector, Hyderabad not to mutate the property in the name of the petitioner and the said proceedings are kept in abeyance till the disposal of the present suit. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 6844 of 1991 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the Government for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed on 23-02-1995 stating that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of injunction and in the said suit the plaintiff admitted that all the Family members along with parents are residing in the suit schedule property since 1960 and as the property is in joint possession of all the brothers, the defendants requested to dismiss the petition. .4. The lower Court dismissed the said application by observing that on perusal of the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants on the ground that he encroached the land wherein the suit schedule house was constructed by the plaintiff by spending huge amounts and the government subsequently regularized unauthorized possession over the Government land, that the plaintiff paid amount to the Government for regularization of the unauthorized possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendants are contending that they are also in possession and enjoyment of the property along with the plaintiff with their parents. The suit schedule property was valued at Rs.4,98,000/- and the defendants also paid some amount to the Government for the purpose of regularization and the Joint Collector kept in abeyance of the regularization of the property till the disposal of the suit. The suit schedule property was valued at Rs.4,98,000/- and the defendants also paid some amount to the Government for the purpose of regularization and the Joint Collector kept in abeyance of the regularization of the property till the disposal of the suit. Therefore, the defendants filed counter claim for partition of the suit property. The lower Court further observed as follows: ."After going through the contentions of both parties, I am of the opinion that at present, without adducing any evidence on both sides, it cannot be decided whether the defendants are entitled for counter claim as prayed by them in the written statement or not as it is a premature stage." 3. 5. The lower Court further observed that the question whether the defendants are entitled to 1/4'h share in the suit schedule property can be decided after framing appropriate issue in the suit and after full-fledged trial. 4. 6. It is the contention of the plaintiff/ revision petitioner that the plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of the property belonging to the Government. The application made by him for regularization of the said property is pending before the Joint Collector. As on today he did not acquire any title to the property. Unless and until the possession is regularized none of the family members will get any right over the property. Therefore, the counter claim by way of claiming partition of the suit schedule property is premature and cannot be maintained in an injunction suit. .7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after encroachment of the property by the plaintiff the house property was constructed on the site and all the family members including the parents are residing in the house since long time and as they also contributed part of the amount required for regularization they are entitled to get the suit property partitioned among the brothers. He further contended that in an injunction suit also a counter claim for partition can be made and it is not a bar to make a counter claim in the injunction suit. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the revision petition by confirming the order of the lower Court. In Gurubachan Singh v. Shag Singh and others AIR 1996 SC 770 , the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Order VIII Rule 6-A(i) held that in a suit for injunction counter claim for possession can also be entertained. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the revision petition by confirming the order of the lower Court. In Gurubachan Singh v. Shag Singh and others AIR 1996 SC 770 , the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Order VIII Rule 6-A(i) held that in a suit for injunction counter claim for possession can also be entertained. In the case covered by the above decision the petitioner and the 8th respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 from dispossessing them from the suit schedule land or part thereof. The defendants filed written statement contending that the petitioner and 8th respondent had trespassed into their land of an extent of 3 kanals and they are in unlawful possession. Thereby, they raised counter claim for possession of the property. The trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the petitioners, granted decree for possession of 2 kanals. 2 marlas and one biswa comprising survey numbers mentioned therein. On appeal, the order of the trial Court was confirmed by the High Court. The contention raised before the Court below was that in a suit for perpetual injunction respondents could not lay any counter claim for possession. The Supreme Court held that in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings right to the defendants to raise the plea of stay of injunction to a counter claim under Order 6 in the same suit irrespective of the fact whether the cause of action for counter claim or set off accrued to the defendant either before or after filing of the suit. The only limitation was that the counter claim or set off must be pleaded by way of defence in the written statement before the defendant filed his written statement or before the time limit for delivering the written statement has expired, whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim .for damages or not. In a suit for injunction the counter claim for possession also could be entertained, by portion of Order 8 Rule 6-A(i) of the C.P.C. 5. 8. In a suit for injunction the counter claim for possession also could be entertained, by portion of Order 8 Rule 6-A(i) of the C.P.C. 5. 8. In Jagmohan Chawala and another v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and others 1996 (4) SCC 699 ., the Supreme Court considered the scope of Order 8 Rule 6-A to 6-G C.P.C. and held that the counter claim filed by the defendant need not relate to the original cause of action but can be made on an independent and different cause of action, even on one which accrued to defendant after institution of the suit. In a suit for injunction, counter claim for injunction in respect of the same or a different property is maintainable. In the case covered by the above decision, the plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession of the property. The defendant filed a written statement stating that they purchased another land situated in a different area and were in possession and enjoyment of the same. They sought counter claim of permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the land. The appellants filed their additional written statement as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 6-E C.P.C. disputing the averments made by the defendants in their counter claim. They also pleaded that the counter claim is also not maintainable and filed an application under Order 8 Rule 6-C C.P.C and Section 151 C.P.C. praying to exclude the counter claim from the written statement. The petition was dismissed. The High Court also dismissed the revision petition directing the trial Court to decide, as an issue, whether the property in dispute was the same, which was the subject matter of the counter claim and to dispose of the same after recording the findings. On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended that in the suit for injunction, counter claim was not maintainable and that the direction issued by the High Court to identify the land to which the counter claim related and was referable to the property in dispute, was also not consistent. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal observed as follows: "Acceptance of the contention of the appellant tends to defeat the purpose of amendment. Opportunity also has been provided under Rule 6-C to seek deletion of the counter claim. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal observed as follows: "Acceptance of the contention of the appellant tends to defeat the purpose of amendment. Opportunity also has been provided under Rule 6-C to seek deletion of the counter claim. The trial court had not found it necessary to delete the counter claim. The High Court directed to examine the identity of the property. Even otherwise, it being an independent cause of action, though the identity of the property may be different, there arises no illegality warranting dismissal of counter claim. Nonetheless, both, the claim in the suit and the counter-claim could be tried and decided and disposed of in the same suit." Order 8 Rule 6-A C.P.C. reads as follows: (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, 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 the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claims hall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. .(2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. .(3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. .(4) Thecounter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. Order 8 Rule 6-C read as follows: "6C Exclusion of counter-claim: Where a defendant sets up a counter-claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the 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." 1. 9. 9. The object of rule introduced in the Civil Procedure Code is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to treat them as suit and cross suit, the counter claim expressly treated as a cross suit with all the initiation of pleadings as a plaint including the duty to avert the cause of action and also payment of requisite Court fee thereon. In spite of recalling the defendant to an independent suit to avert multiplicity of proceedings and needless protection, the Legislature intended to try both the suit and counter claim in the same suit as suit and cross suit and for disposing of in the same trial. In other words, the defendant can claim any right by way of counter claim in respect of any cause of action that is accrued to him even though it is an independent cause of action averred by the plaintiff and being the same cause of action adjudicated without recalling the defendant to file a separate suit. 10. From the above decisions, it is clear that a counter claim can be made on the basis of any cause of action claiming any right in the property. There is no dispute about the legal position, but after going through the pleadings, it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming that he is in exclusive possession of the property as an encroacher and he made an application for regularization of the Government property in his favour. The defendants are contending that since they are living in the house for more than 30 years, they are also entitled for shares in the property. No fresh cause of action arose to the defendants after filing of the suit or after filing of the written statement. The title of the property is in dispute and unless regularization is made neither the plaintiff nor the defendants get any title to the property except claiming that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants asked for partition of the property of which none of the parties have any right and title. Therefore, there is no fresh cause of action for the defendants to make any counter claim that it is a joint family property and it is liable for partition. 2. 11. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the value of the counter claim is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower Court. Therefore, there is no fresh cause of action for the defendants to make any counter claim that it is a joint family property and it is liable for partition. 2. 11. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the value of the counter claim is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower Court. Therefore, the counter claim cannot be maintained and the suit has to be filed by them if they so desired before the proper Court. 3. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as per the proceedings of the Collector dated 01-03-1997 the value of the site was Rs.4,98,000/-of which a building was constructed by the plaintiff. But as on the date of counter claim the plaintiff's counsel submits that the value of the property is more than Rs.30 lakhs as per the certificate issued by the Registrar of Assurances. Therefore, he submitted that the counter claim is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit proceedings are pending cannot be entertained. I find sufficient force in the contentions raised by the plaintiff regarding the maintainability of the counter claim on both the grounds. Though, normally a counter claim on different cause of action can also be maintained. But in the facts and present circumstances of the case, the counter claim cannot be maintained. Therefore, it is liable to be excluded from the written statement of the first defendant in O.S.No. 1038 of 2007. 4. 13. Inthe result, the revision petition is allowed. Order of the lower Court dated 07-03-2008 in I.A.No. 222 of 2007 is set aside. I.A.No. 222 of 2007 is allowed by directing the trial Court to exclude the counter claim not only on the ground that there is no title to any of the parties as on the date of filing of the suit and also on the ground that the value of the property is more than pecuniary jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. No order as to costs.