RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) WITH the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. It appears that the petitioners filed the suit for permanent injunction in the year 1998 being O.S. No.503 of 1998. On 05.10.1998 the respondents filed written statement. Now on 12.09.2007 almost after nine years, the respondents filed an amendment application seeking amendment in the written statement raised counter claims. The petitioners filed objection on 05.10.2007. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Etah vide order dated 07.11.2008 allowed the amendment application. The petitioners filed Revision no.96 of 2008, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.08.2009 by the Additional District Judge, Etah and hence the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C. defendants can file counter claim 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. He submitted that in the present case, written statement was filed on 05.10.1998 and the amendment application has been filed on 12.09.2007 the amendment of the written statement raising counter claim. He submitted that so far as amendment in the written statement and the other part is concerned, the order of the court below may be corrected but so far as raising the counter claim after nine years by way of amendment after filing of the written statement in the year 1998 is wholly illegal and hit by Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C. Sri G.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the order of the court below. ;