IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4234 OF 2010 Between: Mathe Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner A n d Tanneru Rama Rao and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4234 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 04-08-2010 in I.A.No.119 of 2010 in O.S.No.390 of 2006, on the file of the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Guntur, wherein the said application filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, seeking permission to file counter-claim, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration of title over items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property based on two registered sale deeds dated 28.03.2005 and 03.06.2005. The respondents/ defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. According to the respondents/defendants, they are in possession and enjoyment of 500 sq. yards and they raised barbed wire fencing with cement poles and the plaintiff removed the barbed wire fencing and the poles under the guise of injunction orders in O.S.No.547 of 2005 and also illegally raised a compound wall with hallow bricks on the western side and put up an iron gate. The respondents/defendants, therefore, sought permission to raise a counter-claim in their written statement seeking the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the newly raised compound wall and iron gate. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a counter opposing the application and contending that after the decree in O.S.No.547 of 2005, he constructed a wall with hallow bricks in the place of existing barbed wire fencing to prevent illegal encroachments. The trial Court permitted the counter- claim in view of the admission of the plaintiff that he constructed the wall and the gate during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, it is a subsequent event. 4. Order VIII Rule 8 CPC states that any ground of defence which has arisen after the institution of the suit or presentation of a written statement claiming a set off or counter-claim may be raised by the defendant or plaintiff, as the case may be, in his written statement. According to the defendants, necessity for making the counter claim seeking the relief of mandatory injunction arose only on account of the subsequent event of the plaintiff removing the barbed fencing and erecting a compound wall with a gate. However, order VIII Rule 6A states that a defendant in a suit may set up, by way of counter claim any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant either before or after filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. 5. Admittedly, the respondents/defendants have filed written statement long prior to filing the present application. When once the written statement is already filed, the defendants cannot be permitted to raise a counter claim at a subsequent point of time in view of the bar contained in Order VIII Rue 6A. 6. It is open for the defendants to seek other remedies available under law regarding the relief in respect of compound wall and gate, but they cannot raise the same by way of a counter claim in the present suit subsequent to filing of the written statement in view of Order VIII Rule 6A CPC. The impugned order, permitting the counter claim is, therefore, held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st November, 2011 Lrkm.