IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3765 of 2010 BETWEEN Syed Noman Hussaini. ... PETITIONER AND Smt. Sarah Bai. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. W.V.S. RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. R.A. ACHUTANAND The Court made the following: ORDER: The application being I.A.No.167 of 2010 in O.S.No.954 of 2009 filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking leave to file counter claim was dismissed by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 05.07.2010. Hence, this revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The impugned order shows that the petitioner had filed a written statement on 12.08.2009 and thereafter, issues were framed on 07.10.2009 and the respondent/plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents were marked and the suit was coming up for cross-examination of P.W.1. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that after seeking two adjournments, the present application is filed and under Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a counter claim has to be filed as prescribed therein. 5. It is not in dispute that even now no counter claim is filed before the trial Court and only an application seeking leave was filed. The counter claim proposed is in the nature of a relief for specific performance of an agreement to grant further lease for five years. In the written statement filed in the present suit, no doubt, the averments in support of such plea, which the defendant seeks to take, is mentioned, however, no relief as is now sought to be asked was mentioned. The written statement was filed long back and as such, I am unable to see any infirmity or perversity in the order of the Court below refusing to grant leave especially as the suit is now part heard and as the petitioner/defendant has come up with the request after almost 2½ years, no interference of the impugned order is, therefore, called for. The civil revision petition is dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner/defendant from approaching the competent Court by appropriately framed suit, if permissible under law and seek appropriate relief, if so advised. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously, as it is already part heard. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 1, 2011 DSK