IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.726 of 2009 SMT. NEETA SINGH Versus SMT.BANDANA JHA ----------- 3/ 20.05.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The present revision challenges the appropriatness of the order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the Munsif, East Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 55 of 2007 by which he dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner who is a defendant in the above noted suit for entertaining her counter-claim. The petition was filed on 12.2.2009. Some of the dates might be relevant for the present purpose. The suit was admitted on 4.7.2007 and the petitioner appeared and filed her written statement on 18.3.2008 whereafter the issues were settled and the evidence of the plaintiff was completed. The court directed the petitioner to lead her evidence in support of her written statement and defence but instead of doing that, she filed the petition setting up counter-claim. The relevant provision is Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub Rule 1 states that a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. - 2 - The proviso appended to the above provision limits the counter claim within the jurisdiction of the court to the pecuniary limits of that particular court in the context to that particular suit. It was contended that for entertaining a counter-claim, the court has to take into account the period of limitation for setting up a claim in ordinary method before any Civil Court and it could not be confined as per the language of Order VIII Rule 6 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have all the reasons to differ with the contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to reject it. When the legislature drafted the provision by choosing the words “after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired”, it was simply referring to the date of filing of written statement as the date of filing of the counter claim. It was contended by learned counsel for the opposite party that there was no counter claim even whispered in the written statement of the petitioner and the petitioner subsequently invented the play by discovering that she also had a claim to be adjudicated upon in the same suit against the plaintiff. While delivering the written statement, the petitioner did take his plea of counter claim which he does now when he is called upon to adduce his evidence. As such, the setting up of the counter-claim by the petitioner appears only to dilate the suit. Under the above reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere - 3 - with the order impugned. Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)