Shamim Ahmed v. Saida Khatoon And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3448 of 2014 ======================================================
1. Shamim Ahmed Son Of Jamil Ahmed Resident Of Mohalla- Magarhatta, P.S. Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Saida Khatoon Daughter Of Jamil Ahmed Wife Of Late Abdul Qayum Resident Of Village- Bhairopur, P.S. Bidupur, District- Vaishali
2. Tanveer Akhtar Son Of Jamil Akhtar Resident Of Mohalla- Manik Chowk, Hajipur Town, P.S. Hajipur, District- Vaishali
3. Shakeel Ahmed Son Of Jamil Ahmed Resident Of Mohalla- Magarhatta, P.S. Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali
4. Ishteyaque Ahmed Son Of Shamim Ahmed
5. Akhlak Ahmed Son Of Shamim Ahmed
6. Imtiyaz Ahmed Son Of Shamim Ahmed Residents Of MohallaMagarhatta, P.S. Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali
7. Akhtari Khatoon Daughter Of Jamil Ahmed And Wife Of Md. Chand Resident Of Village- Sahddulahpur Chakphool, P.S. Hajipur, DistrictVaishali
8. Nasima Khatoon Daughter Of Jamil Akhtar And Wife Of Md. Soyeb Resident Of Village Bharopur, P.S. Bidupur, District- Vaishali
9. Masuma Khatoon Daughter Of Jamil Akhtar And Wife Of Md. Ekbal Resident Of Mohalla- Nungola, P.S. Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisur Rahman : Mr. Waliur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 11-01-2016 Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anisur Rahman, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
The petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.12.2013
passed by the Sub-Judge-III, Hajipur, Vaishali in Title Suit No. 152 of 1990, whereby the court below has accepted the counter claim filed by defendant No.1 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
On 07.04.2014, notices were issued by this Court as it was submitted by the petitioner that a counter claim by the defendant against a defendant is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Singh @ Ors. versus State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) & Ors. reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 232 SC. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents annexing a copy of the counter claim. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, in fact, the counter claim was filed by defendant No.1 not only against the defendants but also against the plaintiff. Therefore, it is wrong to say that counter claim is only against the defendant. Perused the order passed by the court below and also written statement-cum- counter claim filed by defendant No.1.
From perusal of the same, it is clear that, in fact, counter claim is against the plaintiff also, therefore, above decision, relied upon by the petitioner, is not helpful to the petitioner rather it is helping respondent No.1.
plaintiff. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Interim order granted earlier vide order dated 07.04.2014 is vacated.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) brajesh/- U