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 2026:BHC-AUG:36962 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:- O R D E R 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/