IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 84 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.6.2008 Behmi Ram and others Petitioners. Versus Kunta Devi . Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Bindiya Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chamba, in Civil Suit No. 62/2000, whereby he has rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement. A perusal of the application for amendment filed by the petitioners shows that in fact not even a word in the original written statement is sought to be changed. The petitioners by means of this so called application for amendment want to raise counter claim which it had not raised at the time of the filing of the written statement. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit land on the basis of a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Will. The defendants in the original written statement had disputed the said Will and claimed that the same was fictitious. However, no counter claim was filed. The suit was filed in the year 2000. This application has been filed in 2008, after a period of eight years. In fact, though it is termed as an application for amendment, it is apparent that it is basically an application seeking permission to file a counter claim. Order 8 Rule 6-A permits a defendant to file a counter claim in suit. It reads as follows:- “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 judgement 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. 3 (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.” A bare reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6-A makes it abundantly clear that the counter claim must be filed by the defendants at the time of or before delivering his defence. No such counter claim can be filed after the written statement has already been filed. The learned trial Court, as such, was absolutely right in rejecting the application. There is no error in the order of the learned trial Court. The petition is, therefore, rejected. 17th June, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™