RSA No.343/2000 3.3.2009: Present: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. It is not disputed by the parties that the counter-claim projected by the defendant in the written statement has not been discussed either by the trial court or by the first appellate court. It is settled law that the counter-claim put forth by the defendant is required to be adjudicated upon in accordance with law and if necessary by framing issues to this effect. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgments rendered by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court are set aside with the consent of the parties. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the counter-claim, as projected in the written statement amended/un -amended. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 5.4.2009. Needless to add by way of clarification that the counter-claim will be registered separately and the procedure laid down under order 8 rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be taken into consideration by the trial court. Since the parties are litigating for a very long period, the trial court is directed to culminate the proceedings within a period of six months from 5.4.2009 onwards. The records of the case be sent to trial court forthwith. The Registry is also directed to return the original records annexed with the application filed under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure after retaining the photocopies of the same. It is made clear that the defendant can also lead evidence which he has tried to lead by way of application preferred before this Court under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), March 3, 2009 Judge. *Awasthi*