THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5266 OF 2008 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 30.09.2008 in I.A No.757 of 2006 in O.S.No.1454 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC) at Visakhapatnam wherein the said application filed by the Petitioners herein for receiving Counter Claim-cum-Additional Written Statement was dismissed. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused the record. 3 The Respondents herein filed the said suit for recovery of certain amounts due from the Petitioners herein based on suit promissory notes. The Petitioners filed their written statement on 26.04.2005. Thereafter issues were settled. The affidavit in lieu of the chief examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 were also filed and the matter was coming up for their cross examination. At that stage, the Petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, filed I.A.No.757 of 2006 under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file Counter Claim-cum-Additional Written Statement. The said application was opposed by the Respondents / plaintiffs. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the same on the ground that Counter Claim cannot be received long after filing of the written statement in view of the bar contained in Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the plea regarding the counter claim was already made in the written statement and therefore no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents/plaintiffs if the Counter Claim is allowed at this stage. 5 Admittedly, no Counter Claim as such was filed by the defendants before filing their written statement nor even along with the written statement. It is more than a year after the written statement was filed and during the course of trial, the present application has been filed. Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC stipulates that the Counter Claim can be filed before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. 6 Admittedly, the Petitioners have not filed the Counter Claim before their defence is delivered. Filing of the Counter Claim at this stage i.e. after the matter is posted for trial is clearly violative of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6 A CPC. The impugned order dismissing the application does not, therefore, call for interference. Petitioners/defendants are at liberty to avail other remedies, if any, available under law for redressal of their grievance. 7 The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------- G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. 17.06.2011 Kvsn