1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.188 of 2010 (Narendrakumar Laxman Padole v. Vinodkumar Krantikumar Sagdeo and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.A. Radke, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 22 nd January, 2010 This petition by the defendant in Special Civil Suit No.130 of 2004 is directed against the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below applications Exhibits 126 and 130, whereby the learned Judge refused leave to the applicants to raise a counter-claim. The petitioner had filed written statement on 2-6-2004. In the applications Exhibits 126 and 130, the petitioner states that one Manoharrao Tekade died on 2-1-2006 and the plaintiffs did not vacate the premises till December 2006. It was stated that the possession of the plaintiffs had become illegal from the date of death of Manoharrao Tekade. This cause of action obviously arose after the defence was delivered on 2-6-2004. Rule 6-A of Order VIII of Civil Procedure Code reads as under : 2 “6-A. Counter-claim by defendant.--(1) 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 : Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.” Rule 6-A of Order VIII of Civil Procedure Code enables a defendant to set up a counter-claim only 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. Such a limitation had to be 3 put because otherwise since bickerings between the parties would go on, one or the other cause of action would accrue even at later stages of the suit, which may be used as a counter-claim by the defendant and which would result in plaintiff filing a written statement, issues being again struck, parties being again thrown in the rigmarole of evidence and there may be no end to such counter-claims. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Judge erred in refusing to permit the defendant to raise a counter-claim by amendment to the written statement or by application at Exhibit 130. The petitioner can always file a suit if some cause of action has accrued after the defendant has delivered his defence and should the learned Trial Judge so find convenient, he may try both the suits together. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl