C.R.No.6140 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6140 of 2009. Decided on: October 24, 2009. Kamal Deen etc. .. Petitioners VERSUS Punjab Wakf Board .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2009, by virtue of which in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against the defendant- respondent Punjab Wakf Board to restrain the defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The trial Court has permitted the defendant-respondent to file counter claim on an application for permission to file counterclaim dated 20.08.2009. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that such an application (Annexure P-1) to file counter claim was filed by the . . . 1 C.R.No.6140 of 2009 defendant-respondent Wakf Board on 06.02.2009, and the plaintiffs- petitioners had filed reply to the same. In spite of contesting the said application, the trial Court has decided the subsequent application and permitted the defendant to place on record counter claim. He has also referred to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC, to contend that the counter claim should have been filed by the defendant while filing the original written statement. Counsel states that the suit had been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners on 14.01.2008 and the defendants had filed written statement on 24.01.2009. The counter claim application was filed on 06.02.2009. As per provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC, the defendant has got a right to file counterclaim any right in respect of cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiffs either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has taken his defence. A option has been given to the defendant to file counter claim even after the expiry of time limited for delivering his defence. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that apparently there is a legal flaw in the order dated 22.09.2009, by permitting counter claim. The proper procedure for the defendant-respondent was to seek an amendment of the written statement to incorporate the counter claim but a short cut method to enable the respondent to file counter claim has been permitted. Taking into consideration the relevant provisions of law pertaining to counterclaim i.e. Order 8 Rule 6 C CPC, which . . . 2 C.R.No.6140 of 2009 enables a Court to either exclude the counter claim or to separate the counter claim (Order 8 Rule 7 CPC). Adjudication of separate counter claim is permissible. Though there is a legal flaw in the method in which the counter claim has been permitted but the right of the defendant-respondent to file counter claim or to file a separate suit for possession cannot be declined. Had the trial Court permitted the amendment of written statement and allowed counter claim, the plaintiffs-petitioners ought to have been compensated with costs. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order but I am of the opinion that plaintiffs-petitioners ought to be compensated by payment of costs for the delay on the part of the defendant- respondent to file counter claim. The order dated 22.09.2009, is hereby confirmed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiffs. The costs will be paid by the defendant on demand by the plaintiffs before the trial Court on production of this order. It is observed here that I have opted to dispose of this revision petition in limine, in the interest of justice, to save the time and money of the defendant-respondent which could have been spent on litigation had this Court adjudicated the matter after notice. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 24, 2009. rka . . . 3