ORDER 1. Petitioner/defendant No.2 has approached this Court taking exception to the order of trial Court dated 1.1.2016, whereby, while deciding application under Order 7 rule 11, CPC filed by respondent No.7/defendant No 1, counter-claim filed by the petitioner directed against plaintiffs and defendants No.1, 3 and 4 to avoid multiplicity of suits though has been found to be maintainable, yet, at a later stage in the impugned order it has been concluded that the said counter claim is maintainable against plaintiffs only and petitioner/defendant No.2 has been set at liberty to file cross-suit against defendants. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the suit styled as one for declaration and permanent injunction is pending consideration, yet, relief No.3 thereof suggests that the suit is also for declaration of entitlement of partition amongst the parties. The same reads as under: ^^rhu & ;g fd ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tk, fd oknh Øekad 4 pkj izfr'kr o 5 ik¡p izfr'kr dks nsus ds ckn tks 'ks"k edku dykorh ckbZ dk gS ftlds oknh Ø- 1] 2] 3 ,oa 6 rFkk izfroknhx.k ekfyd o fgLlsnkj gSa rFkk mlh vuqlkj foHkktu djkus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA** 3. It is submitted that plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and defendants No.1 and 2 are real brothers and sisters. During the pendency of suit, defendant No.2/petitioner, along with written statement, has also filed a counter-claim seeking relief of exclusive ownership of suit property on the strength of compromise decree dated 12.5.1998, in respect of the suit property, in his favour. As parties to suit are tenants-incommon of a joint Hindu family as claimed by the plaintffs, the primary claim in the counter-claim to entire property against plaintiffs and also against co-defendants for the same and common grounds/reasons. As such, the counter-claim so filed by petitioner/defendant No.2, is permissible against plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Singh and others v. State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand) and others [ (2006)12 SCC 734 )], relied upon by this Court in somewhat similar facts in the case of Kailash Narayan Gupta v. Shyam Sundar and others (Writ Petition No.2579/2009) decided on 29.7.2015. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that the trial Court has committed illegality and jurisdictional error while passing the order impugned, inasmuch as, though it has found the counter claim to be maintainable to avoid multiplicity of litigation, yet, later has directed the petitioner to file cross-suit against defendant No.1/respondent No.7. Such a course adopted by the trial Court is not palatable in law and runs contrary to the principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of Rohit Singh (supra). Moreover, it is submitted that while deciding the application under Order 7 rule 11, CPC, the trial Court could not have addressed upon the nature, degree and extent of claim made in the counter-claim which is primarily directed against the plaintiffs as the same is liable to be addressed when the parties go to trial and not at the threshold. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel seeks quashment of the impugned order. 5. Per contra Shri Mahadik contends that in the application under Order 7 rule 11, CPC, defendant No.1 has specifically raised the objection as regards counter claim directed against him on the premise that the same is not maintainable in view of Order 8 rule 6A, CPC and the trial Court has rightly upheld the objection and the power exercised is referable to Order 8 rule 6C of the CPC. Learned counsel also submits that in the judgment in the case of Rohit Singh (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble apex Court itself has ruled that no counter-claim is maintainable solely against co-defendants. Therefore, the trial Court was justified having directed the petitioner/defendant No.2 to file a separate suit against defendant No.1 though to be tried analogously with the instant suit. 6. Heard, counsel for the parties. 7. Before adverting to rival contentions, it is expedient to quote Order 8 rule 6A of CPC which reads as under :- 6A. Therefore, the trial Court was justified having directed the petitioner/defendant No.2 to file a separate suit against defendant No.1 though to be tried analogously with the instant suit. 6. Heard, counsel for the parties. 7. Before adverting to rival contentions, it is expedient to quote Order 8 rule 6A of CPC which reads as under :- 6A. Counter claim by defendant.- (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 claim shall 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) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the aforesaid provision, has ruled that the counter-claim primarily filed against the plaintiff if also seeks relief against co-defendants, this by itself would not bar the counter-claim, as the counter-claim cannot be entertained if it is solely filed against co-defendants. This Court in the case of Kailash Narayan Gupta (supra), relied upon by counsel for the petitioner had the occasion to address upon similar controversy in the context of almost similar facts, inasmuch as the suit filed was amongst the members of a family in relation to property in which all of them were tenants-in-common and each party was at par in the context of claim of share in the property. This Court has ruled that the counter claim filed since was directed against the plaintiff along with defendants, as such, no exception to the counter-claim could be taken relying on Order 8 rule 6A CPC in view of law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Rohit Singh (supra). In the present case, as it is an inter se claim, following the judgment passed by this Court in Kailash Narayan Gutpa's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that in the facts in hand where the parties are members of a joint Hindu family, irrespective of their independent claims, at this stage, the property in question is relatable to each one of them, in respect whereof plaintiff has filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction against the defendants and defendant No.2/petitioner has made a claim of his exclusive ownership of the entire suit property based upon the aforesaid Razinama. Consequently, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view. 9. As a result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court is, hereby, set aside. The counter claim filed by petitioner/defendant No.2 shall be decided together with the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.