THEHON'BLE HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Art 2271 N0. 2^ ^l /2011 i.: ^' PETITIONERS/ DEFENDANT No 2to4 :1 2. 3. ...^ ^x^^ \^^y :sy ^^^ ^s^" ^y^ :^'/ 0/ RESPONDENTS7 PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1., Def. No. 5 Def.No.6 to 15 2. 3. 4. 5. A. Hemkumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Dileshwar Devkumar, aged about 28 years, S/o Dileshwar Rajkumar S/o Dileshwar, aged about 25 years, All by caste Kuchwaha, OGGUpation-AgriGultural, R/o Village Khorma, opposite to Tahsil Qffice, P.S. & Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Lorik yadav, aged about 32 years, S/o Hardeo Lal Yadav, Occupation-Agricultural, R/o Village Khorma, P.S. & Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Sarguja (C.G.) Ramkumar aged about 35 years, S/o Vishwanath, Shiv Kumar aged about 33 years, S/o Vishwanath Ram Dylari D/o Vishwanath ( Dead.) Shivcharan, S/o Not known, aged about 60 years, ^^Ai&^S^S^S^^^^^&^s^^^^^ B. c. D. E. F. G. 6. 7, Umashanker S/o Shivcharan, aged about 32 years, Vijay Shanker, S/o Shivcharan, aged about 28 years, Surendra S/o Shivcharan, aged about 26 years, Devendra S/o Shivcharan, aged about 23 years, Kumari Geeta, D/o ShivGharan, aged aboyt 15 years, Kumari Reeta D/o Shivcharan, aged aboyt 14 years, F & G are minors through guardian Father SMiv Charan, S/o Not Known, All by caste Kuchwaha, R/o Village Karoti, Pakni, Tahsil Surajpur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Mankunwar, D/o Vishwanath, aged not known Chandrika D/o Shivbaran, aged not known, Harjprasad, aged about 30 years, S/o Shivbaran, Rekha D/'o Shivbaran aged about 25 years, Ra m Swaroop S/o Ra m kewa !, aged about 40 years, f-'/ '^^i??^^^^^fe®^^ 11. Savitri, Wd/o Ram Kewal, aged about 65 years, 12. Kaushilya D/o Vishwanath, ^o+ Khiti^>») aged about A.'.years, All R/o Khorma,,P.S. & Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja (C.G.) WRITPETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CQNSTITUTIQN OFINDIA .^.sa HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petition(227) No.2761 of 2011 PETITiONERS Hem Kumar & ors. Versus RESPONDENTS Lorik Yadav & ors. '^ WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTiTUION OF (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.R.J. Jaisw'al, PL for the State. ORAL ORDER (14.06.2011$ Heard on admission. 1. Instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calis in question the legality and propriety of order dated 15.3.2011 passed by Civil Judge, Class-l, Pratapur, District Sarguja whereby and whereunder petitioner's/defendants' application under Order 6 Rute 17 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in the year 1998; writtenstatement was filed by the petitioners in the year 2000 and after ten years at the stage of defendants' evidence petitioners sought amendment in the written statement to a.dd counter claim. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the same is not in accordanee with the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Shri Prajapati, learned counsei for the petitioner would submit that the trial court's approach should be liberal while deaiing with the amendment application fiied by the defendants because it will not chan.ge the nature ofthesuit. 4. i-have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the orderimpugned. ^ 5. As per the provision of Order 8 Rule 6-A of the CPC, the defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pieading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by wav of counter-claim against the claim ofthe plaintiff, any right or daim in respect of a cause of actioh accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or afterjhe filing ofthe suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defenee has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. 6. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to set up his clalm against the plaintiff by way of counter claim before the defendant has delivered his defence meaning thereby before &r at the time of filing of written statement. In the instant case, at the stage of defendants' evidence after 10 years of flling of the written statement, defendant has fiied amendment application to set up his counter claim against the plaintiff which js not inaccordance with the provisionscontalned in the OrderS Rule 6A ofthe CPC. 7. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in disaliowing the above amendment applieation warranting interi'erence of this court under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India. . 8. It is wetisettled principle of lawthat thls Court, ih exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Artiele 227 of the Constitution of Indla, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. 9. The petltion has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. 'St^SsilKs^: |j||ig|||^|||g|: