JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the order dated 08.03.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khurda, in C.S. No.154 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, learned trial judge has rejected the counter claim of the defendant. 2. Since the petition is disposed of on a short point, facts need not be recounted in details. Suffice it to say that plaintiff-opposite party instituted the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Defendant entered contest and filed written statement -cum-counter claim. Learned trial court held that the subject-matter of the suit and the counter claim is totally different. Held so, it rejected the counter claim. 3. Heard Mr. S. K. Samantaray-2, learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a common boundary wall between the plaintiffs land and defendants land. In view of the same, the defendant has filed a counter claim. Though the suit scheduled property in the counter claim is different, but cause of action is same. In the event the counter claim is rejected, the plaintiff will be remediless. 5. Rule 6-A of Order 8 CPC provides : "6-A.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. 6. This Court in Purna Chandra Biswal Vrs. Kiran Kumari Brahma, 2017 (I) ILR- CUT - 805 held that the words "any right" appearing in Rule 6(A) (1) of Order 8 C.P.C. mean right over the suit land. Thus the defendant cannot file a counter claim in respect of the property, which is not the subject-matter of suit. 7. 6. This Court in Purna Chandra Biswal Vrs. Kiran Kumari Brahma, 2017 (I) ILR- CUT - 805 held that the words "any right" appearing in Rule 6(A) (1) of Order 8 C.P.C. mean right over the suit land. Thus the defendant cannot file a counter claim in respect of the property, which is not the subject-matter of suit. 7. Reverting to the facts of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the decision cited supra, this Court finds that the subject-matter of the suit as well as counter claim was totally different. Plaintiff has described the suit scheduled property as follows : Schedule of property: Mouza-Podadiha, Khata No.4527/30. Plot No.439, Area Ac.0.050 decs. Bounded by: East- Bhagaban Badi. West- Defendant. North-Govt. Road South-Govt. Road The defendants have filed counter claim in respect of the property described hereunder: Schedule-A : Mouza-Podadiha, Khata No.35. Plot No.440, Ac0.125 decs out of it North-South-38 x 1 West East. Bounded by: East- House of Late Bhajaman Panda. West- House of Alekha Mishra. North-Village Danda. South-Govt. Road 8. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Purna Chandra Biswal (supra), the inescapable conclusion is that defendant cannot file counter claim in respect of the properties, which is not the subject-matter of the suit. 9. The order passed by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be perfunctory or flawed, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed.