JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 13.07.2018 passed in Original Suit No.132 of 2018 by Civil Judge (Sr. Division-I), Deoghar is under challenge, by which the counter claim filed by the respondent by way of petition dated 04.05.2016 invoking the jurisdiction of the civil court as conferred under Order VIII Rule 6(A) has been allowed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that there is no difficulty in admitting the counter claim for its adjudication on merit but the trial court while allowing the aforesaid petition has virtually established the right of the respondent/defendant of the counter claim which is evident from the bare reading of the order impugned, whereby and whereunder, it has been reflected: (I) The plaintiff and defendant no.1 both are enter-se related as brother and sister i.e Class-1, heir as such the plaintiff has right of preemption/preferential right. (II) So in the interest of justice counter claim filed on 04.05.2016 is allowed. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted by these two findings that the interest of the petitioner has seriously been prejudiced and jeopardized because the court has given specific finding with respect to right of preemption/preferential right and by allowing the counter claim dated 04.05.2016. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the pleading in the writ petition as also the impugned order, the factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that the property in question has been purchased jointly by Ved Prakash Sharma and Gayatri Devi both brother and sister by virtue of deed of transfer in the year 1989. The said Gayatri Devi has transferred the property in favour of Smt. Ranjana Gupta and Swapna Gupta by virtue of deed of transfer dated 18.03.2013. The said Smt. Ranjana Gupta and Swapna Gupta have filed Title Partition Suit No.218 of 2015 for partition of the property which was in the share and in the name of Gayatri Devi, registered by virtue of sale deed executed in the year 1989. The said Smt. Ranjana Gupta and Swapna Gupta have filed Title Partition Suit No.218 of 2015 for partition of the property which was in the share and in the name of Gayatri Devi, registered by virtue of sale deed executed in the year 1989. The trial court has issued notice whereupon the defendant namely Ved Prakash Sharma appeared and filed written statement along with the counter claim, claiming the property to be transferred in his name by virtue of preferential right since according to him the said property which was purchased jointly in his name and in his sister Smt. Gayatri Devi, his sister Gayatri Devi will sold out the property, the preferential right could be upon him to purchase the property but in complete defiance of the same, Gayatri Devi has sold it in favour of Smt. Ranjana Gupta and Swapna Gupta. The said counter claim has been objected by the petitioner/plaintiff to the Title Partition Suit No.218 of 2015. Thereafter the trial court has passed the order dated 13.07.2018 allowing the said counter claim. 5. This Court after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and after going across the order passed by the trial court, has found that while allowing the aforesaid petition dated 04.05.2016, the trial court has made an observation to the effect that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 both are inter se related as brother and sister i.e Class-1, heir as such the plaintiff has right of preemption/preferential right. While allowing the said petition, question of prejudice will be raised by the petitioner which will jeopardize his interest, the issue involved in this case. 6. It is not in dispute that the defendant after being issued notice in original suit in view of Order VIII Rule 6(A), invoking the said jurisdiction the respondent namely Ved Prakash Sharma has filed counter claim, claiming therein preferential right over the property in question which has been allowed, it cannot be said that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction rather when the issue has been raised by the defendant in the suit by way of counter claim, the trial court had to canvass decision in entertaining the dispute so that there may not be multiplicity of proceeding. 7. 7. The question as has been raised by the petitioner with respect to prejudice which would be caused due to observation made by the trial court with respect to fact wherein it has been observed that the plaintiff has right of preemption/preferential right and therefore, the counter claim has been allowed. According to him any counter claim has been entertained after considering the objection filed by the plaintiff to the Title Partition Suit No.218 of 2015, the trial court will adjudicate upon the suit vis a vis claim made by the defendant by way of counter claim on its own merit subject to leading evidence in this regard, of course following due procedure as provide under the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The apprehension of the petitioner that prejudice would be caused, is also not to be accepted, in view of the fact that counter claim which has been filed in the Original Suit No.132 of 2018 and as such the issue has to be decided and is to be answered by the trial court by considering the claim raised by the defendant therein by way of counter claim on its own merit, therefore, this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, however, the trial court will proceed with the trial, without being prejudiced by any of the observation made in the order dated 13.07.2018 and adjudicate upon the same on the basis of evidence produced/led before the court by the respective parties. 9. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.