MISS GAURI D/O AVADHUT KARJATKAR AND ANOTHERSversusMR SAMMER S/O RAMCHANDRA GAIKWAD

2026:BHC-AUG:36962


                                                                              cra123.25
                                                  -1-


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2025


                 Miss. Gauri d/o Avadhut Karjatkar and others     ...Applicants

                             Versus

                 Mr. Sameer s/o Ramchandra Gaikwad                ...Respondent
                                                  …..
                 Mr. S. S. Naik, advocate for the applicants
                 Mr. P. S. Mehta, advocate for the respondent
                                                   …..

                                      CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                      DATED : 17th AUGUST, 2026

                 O R D E R :-

                 1.        This Civil Revision Application is preferred against the

                 order dated 16.04.2025, passed by the learned 6th Joint, Civil Judge,

                 Junior Division, Aurangabad, below Exh.29 in Regular Civil Suit No.

                 899 of 2023, by which the application Exh.29 came to be rejected

                 with costs of Rs.5000/-.



                 2.        The respondent filed the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit in

                 which the applicants filed an application at Exh. 29, for entertaining

                 their counter claim. Earlier, an application with similar prayer was

                 dismissed by one and the same learned Judge/Court. The said order

                 was challenged in this court by filing Civil Revision Application No.

                 106 of 2024. This court, by an order dated 12.02.2025, allowed the
                                                                 cra123.25
                                   -2-

civil revision application and directions were given to the trial court to

reconsider the application in accordance with paragraph No. 233 of

the Civil Manual.



3.         Learned advocate for the applicants pointed out both the

orders i.e. the orders passed by the trial court as well as by this

Court. He pointed out that the provisions contained in paragraph No.

233 of the Civil Manual were not followed, despite directions to that

effect. He submitted that such an act on the part of the trial court is

contentious. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by

the trial court is not sustainable in law. He, therefore, prayed that the

revision application be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.



4.           Learned advocate for the respondent strongly opposed

the application and submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the

trial court does not permit it to entertain the counter-claim. He

submitted that the trial court has rightly held that the counter-claim

cannot be entertained, as, on two occasions, the trial court had held

that the counter claim was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction and,

therefore, could not be entertained. He is relying upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh vs.

Bhag Singh and others, AIR 1996 SC 1087, in which in para 3, it is

observed as under:-
                                                                      cra123.25
                                     -3-



          “3.          …… The limitation was that the counter claim
          or set off must be pleaded by way of defence in the
          written statement before the defendant filed his written
          statement or before the time limit for delivering the written
          statement has expired, whether such counter-claim is in
          the nature of a claim for damages or not. Further
          limitation was that the counter-claim should not exceed
          the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In other
          words, by laying the counter claim pecuniary jurisdiction
          of the court cannot be divested and the power to try the
          suit already entertained cannot be taken away by
          accepting the counter claim beyond its pecuniary
          jurisdiction. Thus considered, we hold that in a suit for
          injunction, the counter-claim for possession also could be
          entertained, by operation of Order 8 Rule 6 (A)(1) of
          CPC.”


5.              On perusal of the impugned order passed by this Court,

along with the contentions raised in the application at Exh.29 and the

objections raised by the respondent, it is clear that the counter-claim

is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the

counter-claim can be decided by the said Court. For this purpose,

paragraph No. 233 of the Civil Manual is a guiding and decisive

provision, which reads as under:-



          “233.        When a suit assigned for disposal by a Civil
          Judge of the Senior Division to his Joint Civil Judge of the
          Junior Division is found by the latter to be beyond his
                                                                     cra123.25
                                     -4-

          pecuniary jurisdiction, he should request his District Judge
          to transfer the suit administratively to the Civil Judge of
          the Senior Division, and not return the plaint to the Plaintiff
          for being judicially presented to the proper Court or return
          it to the Civil Judge of the Senior Division.”


6.         No doubt, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, has pecuniary

jurisdiction to entertain the counter-claim. For that purpose, the

procedure is provided in paragraph No. 233 of the Civil Manual. In

such circumstances, the counter-claim must be entertained, and if

the Court finds that the matter is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, it

can return the plaint and the counter-claim for presentation before

the proper Court, i.e. the Civil Judge, Senior Division, having the

requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. This course has not been followed by

the learned trial court. When directions are issued by this Court, they

must be followed as a matter of judicial discipline.



7.         In view of the above, it appears that the reasons and

findings recorded by the learned trial court are erroneous and

unsustainable in law. The provisions applicable to the suit are also

applicable to the counter-claim, as contemplated under Order VIII

Rule 6-A(4) of the C.P.C. The law laid down in the case of

Gurbachan Singh vs. Bhag Singh and others (supra), therefore, is

of no assistance to the respondent. The Civil Revision Application

deserves to be allowed, and the impugned order deserves to be set
                                                               cra123.25
                                  -5-

aside. Hence, the following order:-



                              ORDER


I.        The Civil Revision Application is allowed.



II.       The impugned order dated 16.04.2025, passed by the

          learned 6th Joint, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad,

          below Exh.29 in Regular Civil Suit No. 899 of 2023, stands

          set aside.



III.      The trial court is directed to entertain the counter claim and

          proceed further in accordance with law. Needless to

          mention that the counter claim can be entertained even

          before framing of issues.



                                        (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/