--1-- C.M.P. No. 612 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 612 of 2023 ---- Sanjay Tiwari, aged about 47 years, son of Law Tiwary, resident of Village Baralota, PO and PS – Daltonganj, District – Palamau, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao, son of Late Loachan Sao, resident of village Khurd, Mohalla Hamidganj, PO and PS – Daltonganj, District - Palamau 2. Rajan Kumar Tiwary 3. Manoj Kumar Tiwary Both sons of Nand Kumar Tiwary, resident of village – Baralota, PO – GLA College, Daltonganj, PS – Medninagar, District – Palamau, Jharkhand .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate For respondent No.2 & 3 :- Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate ---- 10/21.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division-V), Daltonganj in Title Suit No.100 of 2004. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Title Suit being T.S. No.100/2004 was instituted for the decree for specific performance for the suit land in favour of the plaintiff with other prayers. He further submits that opposite party No.2 and --2-- C.M.P. No. 612 of 2023 3 filed a petition for being added as parties which was allowed and the same was affirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3746 of 2006 and thereafter the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 have been added as defendant No.2 and 4 in the suit and they have filed the written statement-cum-counter claim in the case which has been admitted. He then submits that the counter claim has been claimed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 against the defendant No.1 which is not in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties jointly submits that there is no illegality in the order and written statement and counter claim has only admitted and the issue has not been framed as yet and the learned Court considering the principle of allowing the said petition under Order 8 Rule 6C has allowed the said petition and the petition filed by the petitioner for rejection of the counter claim has been rejected by the learned Court. 5. The learned Court considering the multiplicity of the litigation and also the principle of allowing the petition under Order 8 Rule 6C has passed the said order and the entire issue can be decided in the suit whether the counter claim is maintainable or not and all these issues are required to be framed as the issues have not been framed as yet. There is no illegality in the order, as such this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/