JUDGMENT K. K. Birla, J. 1. This is a revision preferred by Sri Shushil Kumar Misra against the order dated 2-11-1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Ballia, rejecting the application of the revisionist for amending the counter-claim preferred by him. 2. In brief, Sri Kesho Prasad Misra and Bhola Nath Misra filed a suit against Sri Brij Behari Misra and others including Sri Shushil Kumar Misra, defendant no. 3 (the present revisionist) for declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendants 3rd set (defendant no. 8) were the exclusive owner of the premises in suit. The parties belonged to the same family. According to the plaintiffs, they had become exclusive owner of the premises in suit on the basis of a private partition in 1970. Defendant no. 3 in his written statement denied this private partition and claimed to be the joint owner of the properties and also set up a counter claim and prayed for partition of l/3rd share in the properties of defendants nos. 1 to 6. He moved an application (186 Ka) for amending the counter-claim contained in the written statement. By this application he wanted to incorporate some other properties to be partitioned claiming them to be the joint properties of the parties. The plaintiffs filed an objection (paper no., 187-C) (Annexure I to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit). By the impugned order the learned Civil Judge rejected the amendment application no. 186 Ka. Being aggrieved, Shushil Kumar has preferred this Revision. 3. In the impugned order the learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that the counter claim can only be preferred under Order VIII rule 6-A CPC till the time of the filing of the written statement and as such the revisionist could not have preferred the counter claim at that time. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned Civil Judge has erred in holding so and the counter claim can be preferred even after the filing of the written statement. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is correct and has been rightly not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned Civil Judge has erred in holding so and the counter claim can be preferred even after the filing of the written statement. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is correct and has been rightly not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties. The bare perusal of Order VIII rule 6-A CPC shows that the words "before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired" relate to the accruing of the cause of action to the defendant and not to the preferring to the counter claim. In the case of Mahendra Jung Rana v. Pan Sing Nagi, 1980 ALJ 319, also the same view has been taken. Therefore, the contention of the revisionist in this regard is correct and the finding of the learned Civil Judge in this regard cannot be maintained. 4. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the amendment application (186 Ka) has been rejected on other valid grounds as well. Defendant no. 1 is the father of Defendant no. 3. It is alleged that a similar amendment was sought by him in his counter claim which had been rejected on 31-3-1982. This will neither be res-judicata nor estoppel. As pointed out earlier, the plaintiffs claim to be the exclusive owner of the properties in suit on the basis of the alleged private partition which is denied by the revisionist as well. Therefore, this could not be a ground for rejecting this amendment application. It may also be pointed out that it is not the counter claim which is in dispute in the revision but it is the rejection of the application seeking amendment in the counter claim which is under consideration before us. 5. Order VIII rule 6-C provides the contingencies where the plaintiff contends that the claim raised in the counter claim ought not to be disposed of by way of counter claim but in an independent suit. Then he may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter-claim may be excluded and the Court may, on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit. 6. Then he may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter-claim may be excluded and the Court may, on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties is that the trial court has found that the defendant should file a separate suit instead of the counter-claim. We find that the trial court had mis-read the provisions of Order VIII rule 6-C. It has observed that on objection by the plaintiff, according to Order VIII rule 6-C CPC the defendants should file a separate suit in place of counter-claim. Clearly enough the aforesaid Order VIII rule 6-C does not lay down such a wide proposition. What it provides is that on the setting up of a counter-claim by the defendant, the plaintiff may, before the issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim apply to the Court that the counter-claim should be excluded and the Court may make such order as it thinks fit. The proposition that on the objection being made by the plaintiff, the defendant should always be asked to file separate suit is untenable. In the instant case the application for amendment has not been allowed. In this case the amendment application is still not in the form of a counter-claim and as such the stage of settling the issue about this counter-claim has not yet arrived. The proper stage for the application under Order VIII rule 6-C, CPC will be when the case taken in the amendment application takes a form of the counter-claim after it has been allowed. In that event a replication/rejoinder will be filed by the plaintiff and then comes the stage of settling the issue with regard to that counter-claim. Before that, the plaintiffs may raise the objection that the defendant should file a separate suit and the counter-claim should not be entertained. If the amendment application is allowed, plaintiffs will have that opportunity to raise this point and then after considering the merits, the court below will decide whether counterclaim should be excluded and the proper remedy is to file an independent suit. If the amendment application is allowed, plaintiffs will have that opportunity to raise this point and then after considering the merits, the court below will decide whether counterclaim should be excluded and the proper remedy is to file an independent suit. In the impugned order the court below has totally misread this provision and the observation in this regard is without any application of mind and therefore, it will be of no help to the plaintiff-respondents in our opinion. It was also contended before us that other parties may have to be impleaded in case application is allowed as they have also interest in these properties. It will suffice to mention without expressing any opinion that in the counter-claim and in this amendment application a partition is being sought. This is a general principle that the partition should be of all the properties and that partial partition is not allowed. The attention may also be drawn to Order VIII rule 6-A (4) which provides that counter-claim should be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. By this amendment application, other properties alleged to be the joint properties of the parties are being added. 7. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the court below has wrongly rejected the amendment application and the same deserves to be allowed. It will be open to the plaintiffs to take plea with regard to the provisions contained in Order VIII rule 6-C, if they so like, at the appropriate stage. 8. Subject to this observations the revision is allowed with costs. The impugned order is set aside. The amendment application 186 Ka is allowed. Revision allowed.