DARSHAN SINGH,J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 02.07.2015, passed by the learned trial Court vide which the application moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs for rejection of the counter claim filed by the respondents-defendants no.1 to 5, 10 to 23, has been dismissed.
(2.) The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that they and defendants no.24 are owner to the extent of ? share of the house bearing No. B-V/166, Mohalla Jatpura, Kapurthala along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Respondents no. 1 to 5 and 10 to 23 have filed the counter claim for passing the decree of separate possession by way of partition by metes and bounds of the suit property. The said counter claim was filed by them after filing of the written statement.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), if the counter claim is not set up by the defendant in the original written statement, it cannot be taken on record and it is not permissible to file the counter claim after filing of the written statement. To support his contentions, he has relied upon case M/s Pritam Rice & General Mills Anga Kirri and another v. M/s Guru Nanak Traders Commission Agents and others 2014 (4) R.C.R (Civil) 613. Thus, he contended that the counter claim filed by the respondents after filing of the replication is liable to be rejected.;