JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. — In this writ application the challenge is made to the order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kuchinda in Civil Suit No.45 of 2006 wherein he rejected the counter - claim of the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : Opposite party No.1 as the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.45 of 2006 for partition by metes and bounds amongst the plaintiff, the present petitioner - defendant No.1 and opposite party Nos.2 to 5 the other defendants. The petitioner after receiving the notice of the suit, filed his written statement on 30.10.2006 along with a counter-claim as provided under Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code. He claimed that (a) Schedule ‘E’ land of the counter-claim be divided among defendant Nos.1, 2 and the plaintiff and in the partition, Schedule ‘F’ land be allotted to the plaintiff, Schedule ‘G’ land to defendant No.2, Schedule ‘H’ land to defendant No.1, and (b) any other relief which may be deemed proper shall be granted. 3. Opposite party No.1- plaintiff filed his objection to the said counter-claim and stated that Schedule ‘E’ land as claimed by defendant No.1 is not the suit property. There was no document filed in support of his plea that the property described in Schedules ‘F’ and ‘G’ were allotted in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 respectively and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are not related to the counter claim filed by defend¬ant No.1 and that the counter-claim can be treated as a separate suit and adjudicated separately. The present suit is one for partition and as there is no full partition of Schedule ‘E’ land, the said property should not be included in the present suit. On the above pleadings, he prayed for dismissal of the counter claim. 4. The Court below on the rival claims of the parties and after verifying the record held that in different Major Settlement Plots under different Khatas as mentioned in the Schedule ‘E’ of the counter-claim yet stood recorded in the names of different persons other than the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and most of those lands are to be declared as acquired land of the three contesting parties, i.e., plaintiff and defendants. It further held that those lands are not readily available for partition and without hearing recorded tenants in respect of those lands. The present suit relates to a portion of joint family property. It appears that prior to the suit the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have amicably divide the subject matter of the suit property outside the Court as evidence by some regis¬tered and unregistered documents. In the suit partial partition can be made leaving rest of property as joint. The counter claim preferred by defendant No.1 cannot be adjudicated so easily unless a fresh and separate suit is filed. On the above grounds the Court below rejected the counter claim. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed the counter claim as all the joint family properties belonging to the parties were not included in the suit. This being a partition suit, the status of the plaintiff and the defendants is the same. All the joint family properties including movable and immovable, need to be included in a suit for partition by metes and bounds. As the Court is in seisin of the matter and the counter-claim is within the four corners of Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) should have considered the counter-claim of the defendants. Since the Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction while rejecting the counter claim, this Court should interfere with the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the Court below rightly rejected the counter claim of the peti¬tioner as it will complicate the trial. He further submitted that since the properties as described in the counter-claim are not yet recorded in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants, partition of those properties is not possible for the time being. 7. It appears that the Court is in seisin of the matter. As’ such, it should decide all the questions which arise in the same suit; otherwise those questions will be barred in another suit as provided in Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. It appears that the Court is in seisin of the matter. As’ such, it should decide all the questions which arise in the same suit; otherwise those questions will be barred in another suit as provided in Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The law is well settled that a person entitled to more than one reliefs in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. The Court below has omitted to consider the plea of the petitioner that the schedule of proper¬ties given in the counter claim are the joint family properties. In a suit for partition all the properties belong to joint family need be included for partition by metes and bounds. Therefore, non-consideration of the counter claim by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), amounts to an error apparent on record. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed, the order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divi¬sion), Kuchinda in Civil Suit No.45 of 2006 is set aside, and the Court below is directed to consider the counter-claim of the petitioner along with the suit of the plaintiff, if the Court-fee on the counter-claim has already been paid. No costs. Application allowed.