HIGH COURT OF CHHATTHSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetRion (227) No. 912 of 2010 PETITIONERS 1 . Defendants Smt. Neelam Gupta, wife of Subodh Kumar Gupta, aged 65 years, 2. Smt. Reena Gupta, daughter of Subodh‘ Kumar Gupta, aged 37 years, 3. Smt. Rashi Gupta, daughter ofr Subcdh Kumar Gupta, ag'e’d“34" years, 4. Smt. Neeti Gupta, daughter of Subodh Kumar Gupta, ages '30 years, Subodh Kumar Gupta, H.U.F. Through Mrs. Neelam Gupta, W/o. Subodh Kumar Gupta, resident a! Kathi No.17, Sector 4, Chandigarh. -I Suryakant Gupta, Lat Bagh, Rajnandgaon — 91441, (Chhattisgarh) Smt. Manju Agarwai, w/o Sh. BK. Agarwai, resident of 22, Motilai ' Nehru Nagar Bhilai, District Durg, Defendant No.2(A) 3(a). Aipana Gupta, widow of Shrikant Gupta, resident of Rataram and Brothers, Starch Factory Campus, Mandsaur 458001 (MR) (bi Mrs. Rakhi Garg, Wlo. Sh. Anoop Garg (daughter of late Shrikant Gupta resident of 247, Shrinagar, Fiat No.502, Lagardenia, Indore-i, Madhya Pradesh. Mrs. Puja Goyai, Wlo. Sh. Vipin Goya! (daughter of iate Shrikant Gupta), resident of 1218, Sector 15, Faridabad, Haryana. (d) Mrs. Mukta Goyai, Wlo. Sh. Vishai Goyai (daughter of iate Shrikant Gupta), resident of Rajram and Defendant No.1(B) (b) Defendant No.2(B) Defendant No.2(C) ’Derendant No.2(D) 4 RESPONDENTS 1. Suryakant Gupta, Slo. Rajaramji Plaintiff Gupta, resident of Lat tB'agh, Rajnandgaon -— 491441, (Chhattisgarh). DefendantNo.1(A) 2(a). Smt. Saraawati Devi, widow of Rajram Gupta, resident of Clo (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india) (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Shame: Present — Mr M L Jaiswei Senior Counsel With Mr Sanjay K Agrawai counsel for the petitioners. Mr.P.K.Tiwari, Senior Counsei wit Mr.Shashi Bhus counset for C. h han, respondent No.1. MrPrateek Sinha, count for respondents N 2 (a & (b and 4 and 5. se o. ) ) 3 (Passed on 4 ugust, 2a) *" A 01 1. Heard. 2. i have perused the order impugned 3.2.2010 (Annexure PI2) passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit ’No.18«A/93 dismissing the review petition for reviewing the order dated 7.1 1 .2009 (Annexure P11) passed by the same District Judge in the aforesaid clvii suit, the order dated 7.1120(39 whereby teamed District Judge has dismissed the appiication for amendment of written statement filed on hehalf of the defendants/petitioners for making their counter claim on the ground that proposed amendment does not serve the purpose of making counter claim and proposed amendment/clam is time ‘ barred claim . 3. As per undisputed facts, vide order dated 1.5.2009 in W.P. (C) No.5717 of 2007, this Court has permitted the present petitioners to file counter claim. the present On the basis of aforesaid liberty/concession/permission, ” ORAL ORDER ._ 2v Brothers, Starch Factory campus, Mandsaur—458001 (Madhya Pradesh) Defendant No.3 4. Smt. Parbha Agawvai, w/o. B.K. Agarwal, resident of 88M, Yash. Nagar, Mandsaur — 458001 (MR) Defendant No.4 5. Subodh Kumar Gupta, ‘Sio. Rajaramji Gupta aged 65 years res1dent of Kothl No 17 Sectar 4 Chandigarh Defendant No.5 6‘ M/s Rajaram & Brothers Mandsaur (M P) 458001 Defendant No.6 7. Krishan Kumar Jindai, Slo. Ram Kumar Jindal, resident 6f 55,’ Dashehra Maiden, Ujjain. petjtioners have fiied amendment of written statement ‘reiating to counter claim and payment of court-fees. . Originauy, vide order dated 7.112009, the_District'Judge, Rajnandgaon has dismissed the amendment application on the ground that the present / petitioners have hot med detail amendment application to make their written statement as counter claim in terms of Order 6 Ruie 17 read with section 152 of the C P C and the proposed amendment is also time barred The present petitioners have also filed revrew petition for revrewmg the order dated 7 11 2009 which was also dismissed by the Distrrct Judge vrde order dated 3.2.2010. . View a View to file counter claim, the parties are required to make their claim at the time of filing 9f written statement by making necessary allegation or to amend their written statement by tiling appropriate application for amendment No specific proforma has been provided in the Court for pleading relating to counter claim. Order 8 Rule 6A of the C.P.C. provides for counter ciaim. ln these circumstances, the Court was required to consider the amendment appii‘cation in the light of Order 8 Rule 6A ‘ofthe C.P.c. . As regards the question of limitation in some circumstances even time barred amendment may be allowed and specutic issue may be framed reiatrng to maintainability of the counter claim In the light of timitation, but in the present case, teamed District Judge has rejected amendment application for amendment of written statement relating to counter ciaim by the orders impugned. The Court beiow has committed iliegality. Such orders are not sustainable under the law. . Consequently, the petition is aiiowed. Orders dated 7.11.2009 and 3.2.2010 passed by the District Judge, Rainandgaon are hereby set aside. Application for amendment of written statement tiled by the petitioners is allowed. The. defendants/petitioners shall amend their written statement within three weeks from today. As a result of such amendment, plaintiff/respondent No.1 and otherdefendants shail be permitted to file their writtenstatementfrepiy to the counter cia‘im and thereafter, the Court shall decide the case on‘ its own merit: Sd/- 3 T.P. Sharma (3..— making their claim counter to the case. \ No order as to costs. Judge