IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.690 of 2009 Rajendra Seth Versus Jalil Ahmad ---------------------------------- 06. 14.12.2011 Heard Mr.Arbind Nath Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajni Kant Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. By the impugned order the court below has dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant in the suit. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the counter claim has been filed by the defendant at the stage when the evidence of the parties have been closed and the matter has been fixed for argument. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the cause of action has arisen subsequently and thereafter he has made a prayer for recovery of possession by way of counter claim and as such the same is not barred by limitation. It has been urged that in order to avoid multiplicity of the suit or proceeding, the counter claim should have been entertained and the matter should have been adjudicated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 opposite parties has supported the impugned order and has made his submissions opposing the prayer of the petitioner. After perusing the impugned order and considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the counter claim has been filed much after the defendant has delivered his defence. It has been provided in Order 8 Rule 6(a)(1) C.P.C. that a counter claim must be filed at the time of delivery of defence by the defendant or before the time fixed for delivery of such defence has expired. However, in this case the learned court below has mentioned the different dates, by which the suit has reached to the stage of argument, when the counter claim has been filed. There is no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned order. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)