JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - The short point in this Civil Revision by the Defendant is the material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court in refusing the prayer for amendment of the written statement by incorporating therein the counter claim. 2. Mr. P.V. Ramdas, the learned Counsel for the Defendant-Petitioner submitted that the decision, reported in Kashi Biswanath Dev Vs. Paramananda Routrai and Others requires reconsideration, in view of the decision reported in Mahendra Jung Rana v. Pan Singh Nagi 1980 ALJ 319. Mr. B. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the opposite party has relied upon a decision reported in Bank of Baroda Vs. Gurcharan Singh taking the same view, as of this Court. It is to be examined if the view taken by this Court would require reconsideration as submitted by Mr. Ramdas. 3. Prior to the amendment of the CPC by Act 104 of 1976, there was no provision relating to counter claim in the Code of Civil Procedure, although, Order 8 Rule 6 CPC provides for a set off in the written statement by the Defendant. The object of incorporating provisions relating to counter claim by amendment is for expeditious disposal of all claims between the parties in one proceeding, Keeping the same in view, Rule 6-B of Order 8 provides that in the written statement the statement is to be specifically made by the Defendant that the grounds mentioned in the written statement are in support of the counter claim. This provision makes it clear that in respect of cause of action, arising before or after the filing of the suit, but before the Defendant delivers his defence or before the time limit for delivering his defence has expired, a counter claim is to be filed. 4. The time for filing a written statement is limited in the summons issued to the Defendant. Where a Defendant is not able to file the written statement within the time limit, in the summons, he seeks for adjournment and the time limit is extended by the Court. When a new specific right is created which was not available earlier, the provision is to be rigidly construed and the general principle of liberal permission to amend the written statement should not be attracted which would defeat the very object of Rule 6-A as is clear from the language itself. When a new specific right is created which was not available earlier, the provision is to be rigidly construed and the general principle of liberal permission to amend the written statement should not be attracted which would defeat the very object of Rule 6-A as is clear from the language itself. In view of what I have stated, the decision of this Court does not require any reconsideration. 5. In conclusion, the trial court is justified in refusing the prayer for amendment and there is no merit in this Civil Revision which is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed