ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been maintained by the petitioner for setting aside impugned order dated 25.9.2021, passed in Case No. 377/2021, titled Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P and Others, passed by the learned Court below, wherein the learned Court below instead of granting permission to file counter claim without serving the notice, as required under Section 80 CPC, has rejected the counter claim filed by the petitioner-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). 2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, plaintiff i.e. Akshay Kumar Verma, (respondent No. 3 herein) maintained a suit under Specific Relief Act, against the defendants. The case was listed for 01.03.2021 for filing written statement, when the defendants under compelling circumstances had filed written statement in support of their case and also filed counter claim, wherein they challenge the alleged demarcation and alleged notice issued by defendant No. 2/State. The defendant alongwith counter claimant has filed an application, under Section 80 (2) CPC, seeking permission to file counter claim against defendants No. 1 and 2 without serving legal notice, as required under Section 80 CPC. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that there is a boundary dispute between the plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 6 whereas land owned by defendants No. 3 to 6 had already been demarcated in accordance with law and iron angles were installed on boundaries during the demarcation. Defendant No. 4 is a law abiding person and due to the negligence on the part of plaintiff i.e. Akshay Kumar Verma and defendants No. 1 and 2/State, defendant No. 4 could not raise construction on the spot and suffered huge financial loss and damages since 2017 and only for this reason defendant No. 4 has filed counter claim against the plaintiff i.e. Akshay Kumar Verma and defendants No. 1 and 2/State challenged the alleged demarcation and notice and claimed damages, but the learned Court below in a wrong and illegal manner dismissed an application, under Section 80 (2) CPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.9.2021, passed by the learned Court below, the petitioner preferred the present petition. 5. The basic question before the learned Court below was whether exemption to issue prior notice, as per the requirement of Section 80(2) CPC to be granted to the petitioner/defendant or not. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.9.2021, passed by the learned Court below, the petitioner preferred the present petition. 5. The basic question before the learned Court below was whether exemption to issue prior notice, as per the requirement of Section 80(2) CPC to be granted to the petitioner/defendant or not. The learned Court below while passing the impugned order dated 25.9.2021 (Annexure P-1) has not at all considered this aspect of the matter, in fact the matter was required to be adjudicated upon, as the learned Court below has not considered this aspect of the matter whether there was such an urgency for which, the petitioner/defendant was exempted from issuing prior notice to the State, as per the requirement of Section 80 CPC and whether there was requirement to exempt Section 80 CPC and whether there was urgent or immediate relief to be claimed against the State and this question was not adjudicated and considered by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order dated 25.9.2021. 6. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is disposed of by recalling impugned order dated 25.9.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Court below by ordering the learned Court below to consider the application afresh and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 7. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on a date already fixed by it. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.