: 1 : 273-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 273 OF 2011 Shri Vikas Mahadu Kate & Anr. .. Petitioners v/s. Sau. Chitra Tulshiram Dhole & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Ms. Lalita Panchakshari for the petitioner Mr. B. Shinde h/f Sanjeev P. Kadam for respondent no.3 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Kadam. waives service on behalf of respondent no.3 who is contesting respondent. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. For deciding this petition, presence of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is not required as the application for amendment and putting up a counter-claim in Special Civil Suit No.68 of 2009 was filed by present respondent no.3 after he attained the age of majority. 2. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as under. : 2 : 273-11-wp=.sxw 3. The petitioners filed Special Civil Suit No.68 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati, Dist. Pune. At the time of filing of the suit, present respondent no.3 was minor and, therefore, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no.3 by other defendants. As defendant no.3 attained the age of majority, respondent no.3 filed an application in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati at Exh.45 praying for amending the written statement as well as putting up the counter-claim. That application was decided by order dated 20th November, 2010. The said application at Exh.45 was granted. This order dated 20th November, 2010 is challenged in this petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. It is admitted fact that main written statement came to be filed when respondent no.3 was minor. It is seen that after attaining the age of majority, respondent no.3 wants to carry out certain amendments in the said written statement. There would be no dispute about this desire on the part of respondent no.3 because after attaining the age of majority, he may be wanting to add certain points on the basis of which he would like to defend the suit, which points are : 3 : 273-11-wp=.sxw stated in the earlier written statement filed during his minority. Hence, that portion of the application at Exh.45 by which respondent no.3 wanted to carry out certain amendments to his original statement can be granted and to that extent grant of application at Exh.45 was proper. 5. So far as the putting up a counter claim along with the aforesaid application at Exh.45 seeking to amend the written statement, it was argued by learned advocate for the petitioners that the course adopted by respondent no.3 was not proper because the stage of filing counter-claim was already over when the other defendants who were acting as guardian for respondent no.3 had filed written statement. The submission advanced by learned advocate for the petitioners that a counter claim could be filed by a person at the time of filing the written statement itself and the said document shall be styled as written statement cum counter claim is correct. Looking to the events which have taken place, it was not proper on the part of respondent no.3 to put up counter claim now. In my view, such a step was not in consonance with the provisions of C.P.C. Of course, if the respondent no.3 after attaining the age of majority wants to put up a claim against the present petitioners plaintiffs, on the strength cause of action which may have accrued to him during his minority he can : 4 : 273-11-wp=.sxw file a separate suit. The institution of the counter claim is not proper. On these lines, the impugned order is required to be reconsidered and the impugned order is required to be set aside partly. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. ORDER (i) Order dated 20th November, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati in Special Civil Suit No.68 of 2009 is partly set aside in as much as the request for amendment of the written statement through application at Exh.45 is granted. The request for putting up the counter claim through Exh.45 is rejected. (ii) At the same time it will be open to respondent no.3 to file a substantive suit so as to put up the case which he wanted to put up through counter claim. Merits of the said case are left open. (iii) Amendment pursuant to this order shall be carried out on or before 18th October, 2011. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)