PETITIONERS Dafendant's 1. HIGH COURT OF CHHATT§5GARH AT EHLASPUR Writ Petition 1227} No. $1 3 of 201a Smt. Neelam Gupta, wife of Subodh Kumar Gupta, aged 65 years. Smt Reena Gupw daughter of $ubodh Kumar Gupta aged 37 years, Smt. Rasm Gupta, daughter of Subndh Kumar Gupta aged 34 years Smt Neeu Gupta daughtet of subodh I Kumar Gupm aged 30 years, ‘ Subodh Kumar Gupia H U F Though 'Vlrs Neelam Gupta Win Subodh Kumar Gupia reSIdent of Kath: No 1 7 Seator 4 Chandigam VERSUS 1.’ ESPONDENTS Plaintiff Defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 Defendant No.3(A) Alpana Gupta, widew of Sh'rikant Gupta, resident of Rajaram and Brothers,’ ‘ Starch Factory Campus, Mandsaur 458001 (MR) subodh Kumat Gupm, S/o. Rajaramji Gupta, aged 65 years, resident of Kathi, No.1 7, $ector 4. Chandigarh. Krishan Kumar Jindai, Sic. Ram‘Kumar Jindai, resident of 55, Dashehra Maiden, Ujjain. Smt. Saraswati Devi, widow of Rejram Gupta, resident of Clo Suryakantb Gupta Lai Bagh Rainandgaon - 491441 (Chhattiegarh) em: Parbha Agarwai wio ‘ BK Agarwal resident cf 8814 Yash Nagar Mandsaur 458001 (M P) Smt. Mann: Agarwai, wlo. Sh. B.K. Agarwai, resident of 22, Motiial Nehru Nagar Bhilai, District Durg. Suryakant Gupta, Sle. Raiaramji Gupta, resident of Lai Bagh, Rajnandgaon —- 491441 , (Chhattisgarh). Mrs. Rekhi Garg, Wfc. Sh. Anoo’p Garg (daughter of fate Shrikant' Gupta resident of 24?, Shrinagar, Ftat No.502, Lagardenia, indore-i, Madhya Pradesh. Mrs. Puja Goyai,‘ Wio. Sh. Vipin Goyei (daughter of iete Shrtkant Gupta)’ resrdent of i218 Sector 15 Fandabad Harvana Mrs. Mukta GoyaL Wlo. Sh. Vishal Goya! (daughter of late Shrikant‘Gupta‘). 4(a). ‘ Defendant No.3(B) Defendant No.3(C) (b) (c) Defendant No.4 Defendant No.5 Defendant No.6 Defendant No.7 R M .,2_ resident of Rauram and Brcthers Stafch Factory campus Mandsadru458001 j ‘ (Madhya Pradesh) Deiendant No.8 9. Nmn Kumar Gupta 3/0 Suryakant / Gupia Resndent of Lal Bagp Rajnandgaon- 491441 (Chhamsgarh) (Writ Pet§tion under Artlcie 227 of the Constitution of lndla) : (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma,J.) Present - MrMLJatswa., Senior Counsel with MrSanjay KAgrawai counsel f0: the MrPKCTIwarI, Senior Confuse! with Mr.Shashi Bhushan caume!» for Mr Prateek Sinha counsel fer respondents No 2 and 4 (a) (b) & (a) petitioners respondent No 1 ‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4E“ August, 201 0) . Heard. . I have perused the order impugned 3 2 2010 ’Annexure P/2) passed by the District Judge Pajnandgaon In CM! Surt No 48 A194 dismissing the revrew petrtron for revrewmg tne order dated 7 11 2009 (Annexure W1) passed by the same Distnct Judge an the aforesaid crvn sort the order dated 7.1 1 .2009 whereby learned District Judge has dismissed the application for amendment of written statement filed an behalf of the defendantsipetitioners for making their counter claim on the ground that proposed amendment does not serve the purpose of making counterclaim and proposed amendment/claim is time barred claim . As per undisputed facts, vide order dated 1.5.2009 in WP. (C) No.5718 of 2007, this. Court has permitted the present petitioners to me counter claim. 0n the basis of aforesaid iiberty.’eoncesstonlpermission, the present petitioners have filed amendment of written statement reiating to counter claim and payment of court-fees. Originaliy, vide order dated 111.2009, the District Judge, Rajnandgaon has dismissed the amendment application on the ground that the present petitioners have not med detail amendment appticatlon to make their written statement as counter claim in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 152 of the C.P.C. and the proposed amendment is aiso time barred. The present petitioners have also fiied review petition for reviewing the order dated 7.1 1 .2009 which was also dismissed by the District'iiudge vide order dated 3.2.2010. View a view to file counter claim. the parties are required to make their claim at the time of tiling of written statement by making necessary allegation or to amend their written statement by tiling appropriate application for amendment making their ciaim ,. . . . M3 —-.(3__ coun€er to the case. No specmc profarma has been pravided in the Court for pleading'relating £0 counter ciaim. Omar 8 Ruie 6A of_the7C.P.C. proVides for caunter claim. tn these circumsmnoes, the Court was required to' consider the amendment application in the light of Order 8 Rule 6A of the C.P.C. 6. As regards the question of iimiietion, in some circumstances even time barred amendment may be allowed and specific issue may be framed relating to maintainability of the counter ciaim in the light of limitation, but in the present case, learned District Judge has reieeted amendment application for amendment cf written statement relating ta counter ciaim by the orders impugned. The Court below has committed illegality. Such orders are not sustainable under the law. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Orders dated 7.11.2009 and 3.2.2010 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon are hereby set aside. «Applieation for amendment of written statement fried by me petitioners I is aliowed. The defendantsipetitioners shaii amend their written smtement within three weeks from today. As a result of such amendment, plaintiff/respondent No.1 and other defendants shall be permitted to frte their written statement/reply to the counter claim and thereafter, the Court shall decide the case on its own merit. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma r- Judge