JUDGMENT:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. By the impugned order the Trial Court allowed the respondent's application filed at Exh.No..No.18 in Spl. Civil Suit No.556 Of 2010 for rejection / exclusion of the counter claim made by the petitioner. 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff who has filed Spl. Civil Suit No.556 Of 2010 in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Thane, Dist. Thane under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of the possession of flat in question. In this suit, the present petitioner has filed Written Statement containing the counterclaim. As stated above, the respondent objected the counterclaim By filing an application which came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to amend his pleadings. 3. Scope of the suit filed U/Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is very limited. The court is not required to go into the ownership or title of the suit property. The court is obliged to see only whether the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the defendant; and, whether suit has been instituted in the court within the prescribed period of limitation. The original defendant by filing Counter Claim has sought declaration that the agreement to sell dated 30th July, 2005 is binding on the plaintiff. As per the agreement, it is the case of the petitioner that late Fatechand Manghirmalani (father of the respondent) agreed to sell the suit premises to him. 4. In my view, the trial court has rightly hold that the petitioner's Counter Claim cannot be entertained in a suit filed U/Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The order does not suffer error on the face of record, warranting interference of this court. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. S.D. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner invited my attention to the clause 1. of the operative part of the order and complains that, by the said clause, the petitioner's counterclaim is rejected on merit. I do not agree with the submission. By the impugned order the trial court allowed the respondent's application and the petitioner is directed to amend the pleadings so as to exclude the relief of Counter Claim. of the operative part of the order and complains that, by the said clause, the petitioner's counterclaim is rejected on merit. I do not agree with the submission. By the impugned order the trial court allowed the respondent's application and the petitioner is directed to amend the pleadings so as to exclude the relief of Counter Claim. The petitioner is always at liberty file a separate suit for the relief claimed in the Counter Claim. The competent court, in the event, such suit is filed, shall decide it on its own merit. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim orders, if any, shall stands vacated.