1 wp 7679.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7679 OF 2011 Dnyandev S/o Ramlal Patil, Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Maldabhadi, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Sanjeev S/o Bhulal Patil, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Agril., 2. Raju S/o Bhulal Patil, Age : 23 Years, Occu. : Agril., 3. Mt. Subham S/o Gajanan Patil, Minor through his mother/guardian Latabai Gajanan Patil., The Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 R/o Rajani, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Sakubai Kailas Zalte, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o Nimkaral, Tq. Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana. .. Respondents (The respondent No. 4 is deleted vide Order dated 18.11.2011) 2 wp 7679.11 Shri S. R. Dheple, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri G. V. Wani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Respondent No. 4 is deleted. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 3/original defendants filed the written statement on 09.10.2006. Thereafter, on 12.01.2010 the defendants filed an application for permission to file counter claim. The same is allowed. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 3. Heard Shri Dheple, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G. V. Wani, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 4. The only issue for determination that would arise is 3 wp 7679.11 whether the counter claim as sought to be made was permissible or not. Perusal of the counter claim it is manifest that the cause of action shown is of 22nd September, 2009. The written statement is filed in the year 2006. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not permit filing of counter claim on the basis of cause of action arisen after the written statement is filed. In the present case, as the cause of action shown in the counter claim is after filing of written statement, the said counter claim could not have been permitted to be filed. The said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Rohit Singh and ors V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2007 S.C. 10. 5. In view of this fact, the Trial Court was in error in passing the impugned order. 6. In the light of above the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11