JAGDISH CHANDRA J ( 1 ) THE defendants moved this application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the Code) for amendment of their written statement so as to include their counter-claim in the sum of Rs. 4-02,500. 00 with all the detailed circumstances attending thereto. This application has been resisted by the plaintiff. The only short question involved in deciding his application is if the defendants can be permitted to amend their written statement so as to include their counter-claim in view of the specific provision of law contained in Order 8 Rule 6-A of the Code which provides for the filing of the counter-claim by the defendants before the defendants have delivered their defence or before the time limited for delivering their defence has expired. Order 8 Rule 6-A reads as under :- (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff 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, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 2 ) THE perusal of this provision of law shows that the legislature did not leave any discretion with the Court in the matter of the stage when the counter-claim is to be filed by the defendant inasmuch as this provision has clearly defined the stage when the counter-claim is to be filed, by providing that it has to be filed before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. The bar, thus, contemplated in this provision of law is quite unmistakable and unambiguous on the face of it regarding the filing of the counter-claim after the defendant has filed his written statement or after the time limited for delivering his defence has expired which meanings can be given to the phrases but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired . Occurring in Rule 6-A. The omission of any discretion of the Court in the matter of advancing the stage of filing the counter-claim beyond what has been stated so precisely in Rule 6-A, is clear not only from the plain working of this provision but is further manifest from the comparative reading of Rules 6 and 6-A of Order 8 as in Rule 6 discretion has been given to the Court whereby the defendant can be permitted even at a later stage to claim set-off in the written statement. Rule 6 is "?et out below :- " (1) Where in a suit for the recovery of money the defendant claims to set-off against the plaintiff s demand any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff, not exceeding the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, and both parties fill the same character as they fill in the plaintiff s suit, the defendant may, at the first hearing of the suit, but not afterwards unless permitted by the Court, present a written statement containing the particulars of the debt sought to be set-off. " ( 3 ) THE stage for filing the set-off in Rule 6 is the first tearing of the suit but not afterwards unless permitted by the Court. Rules 6 and 6-A are contiguous to each other and whereas Rule 6 has been in existence since long. Rule 6-A was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976 with a view to making detailed" provisions regarding counter-claim and, thus, the legislature could not be obvious of the discretion given to the Court in Rule 6 in allowing the filing of the. set-off even at a stage subsequent to the one prescribed therein, and when no such discretion was allowed by the legislature to the Court in Rule 6-A, its intention is very much manifest in debarring the defendants to file the counter-claim after the stage prescribed therein. Thus, when the written statement has already been filed by the defendants arid they did not file their counter-claim in that written statement, they cannot be allowed to do so after the filing of the written statement even by way of introducing an amendment therein so as to cover their counter-claim. Thus, when the written statement has already been filed by the defendants arid they did not file their counter-claim in that written statement, they cannot be allowed to do so after the filing of the written statement even by way of introducing an amendment therein so as to cover their counter-claim. Kashi Biswanath Dev v. Paramananda Routrai and others AIR 1985 Ori 260 (at page 263) (1) also took the same view by holding as under :- "i am, therefore, of the firm view that a counter-claim by the defendant under O. 8 R. 6a of the Code must have to be made at the time of filing the written statement or before the time limited for submission of the written statement has expired. " ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the defendants relied upon Sahebrao Vithoba Pawar v. Bapurao Ravji Pawar AIR 1985 Bom 426 (2) which observed as follows :- "ordinarily, there could be no objection to permit amendments, but where it appeared even from the application for amendment that the alleged counter-claim hardly had any connection with the defence or with the cause of action pleaded, it could not be allowed. " ( 5 ) THE aforesaid observations do not make the matter clear on the interpretation of Rule 6-A or Order 8 of the Code inasmuch as it cast aside the counter-claim and did not permit it for the reason that even then the amendment application the counter-claim hardly had any connection with the defence or with the cause of action pleaded whereas there could be no doubt as to the permission of amendments ordinarily. Even in authority could be interpreted to mean that ordinarily amendments by way of introducing counter-claim are permissible, with respect, that cannot be the interpretation of Rule 6-A. ( 6 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that in their written statement the defendants had talked of the heavy losses which the defendants suffered as a result -of the conduct of the plaintiff-bank and had in the written statement itself specifically reserved their right to proceed against the bank for such claim as may band advised, and so the amendment sought to include the counter-claim in the written statement now would not be something absolutely new as much of the ground in respect of the same stood already covered in the written statement filed by them. This argument is fallacious and cannot be accepted because reserving a right of counterclaim in the written statement cannot furnish a licence to a defendant to cross the mandatory bar provided in Rule 6-A of Order 8 of the Code. Furthermore, even in the written statement what was reserved by the defendants was their right to proceed against the bank for such claim as may be advised and from these lines it cannot be said with certainty whether what was reserved by the defendants was positively a counterclaim or the filing of a separate suit against the plaintiff-bank. ( 7 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the application for amendment fails and is dismissed with. however, no order as to costs.