Judgment :- 1. An order of the trial court permitting the first defendant to amend his written statement in order to raise a counter-claim is challenged by the plaintiff in this revision. 2. The suit for money was filed in 1976. First defendant filed his written statement on 31-1-1977 and additional written statement on 28-7-1977. Replication was filed on 31-8-1977. After settlement of issues the case was pending trial for a long time. Plaintiff closed his evidence and the examination of the first defendant was about to be completed. 3. At that time in 1985, after more than 6 years from the date of filing of the written statement, 1st defendant moved for amendment of his written statement to plead a counter-claim on payment of court fee. Inspite of the fact that the claim has become barred by limitation the trial court allowed the same on the ground that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of suits it has to be allowed since it is not likely to prejudice the plaintiff. 4. I fail to understand the logic behind the reasoning of the trial court. Counter-claim is just the same as a plaint in a cross-suit. Under S.3(2)(b) of the Limitation Act it shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the counter-claim is made in court. Under 0.8 R.6A of the Code of Civil Procedure the counterclaim can be in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the is suit. But it must be regarding a claim that accrued before the defendant delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. Bat the question of filing a counter-claim arises only after the suit is filed and there is nothing preventing the defendant from filing a counter-claim. 0.8 R.6A(1) does not, on the face of it, bar the filing of a counter-claim by the defendant after he bad filed the written statement. What is laid down is only that the counter-claim can be filed provided the cause of action had accrued to the defendant before he delivered his defence or before time fixed for delivery of defence has expired. (See Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P. (1987-3 SCC 265). What is laid down is only that the counter-claim can be filed provided the cause of action had accrued to the defendant before he delivered his defence or before time fixed for delivery of defence has expired. (See Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P. (1987-3 SCC 265). That means on such a cause of action counter-claim could be filed before the expiry of the period of limitation if the suit is then pending and is at a stage that it could conveniently be entertained. R.6B of 0.8 of the Code specifically provides that where any defendant seeks to rely upon any ground as supporting a right of counter-claim, he stall, in his written statement, state specifically that he does so by way of counter-claim. Under R.6C of 0.8 of the Code the plaintiff has the right to ask for and the court has the right to exclude any counter-claim to be decided in an independent suit without being disposed of as a counter-claim in the suit. That may be in cases where due to the nature of the counter-claim or the stage at which it was filed the court thinks that it cannot be tried in that suit and could be tried in a separate suit. 5. If the cause of action and the claim in a plaint presented before court if barred by the law of limitation the court cannot proceed with the suit and the court is not bound to issue process. I have already stated that a counterclaim is just like a plaint in a cross-suit and it must be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the counter-claim is made in court. That means if the cause of action or the claim is barred by limitation on the date en which the counter-claim is made in court the court cannot entertain the same. When written statement already filed is allowed to be amended by adding a counter-claim the amendment also takes effect as on the date of the original written statement. That means if the claim was not barred on the date of the original written statement but barred on the date when the amendment was sought for or allowed, the defendant is thereby getting a successful opportunity of overcoming the plea of limitation and the plaintiff is put to the prejudicial position of being negatived of the right of that plea. In such a situation, I cannot understand how the trial court said that the plaintiff will not be prejudiced. The trial court has not provided that limitation will be considered as on the date on which the counter-claim was sought to be inserted by amendment even if such a prevision will be legal. 6. The mere fact that facts constituting the counter-claim were already there, in the original written statement, is no answer to the plea. That may be a good ground to argue that what is sought to be inserted by amendment is not a new or inconsistent plea, but one based on the original averments. But in order to make it an enforcible counter-claim enabling the court to adjudicate upon it as a cross-suit and pronounce judgment upon it in the same suit as provided in R.6A(2) of 0.8 after allowing the plaintiff to file a written statement as provided in sub-rule (3) of R.6A, there must be a specific statement in the written statement as provided in R.6B of 0.8 that he is doing so by way of counter-claim and there must be payment of court fee also. Then only it could be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints as enjoined by 0.8 R.6A(4). Without doing any of these things if the written statement merely states that no amounts are due to the plaintiff but amounts are only due from him that could be taken only as a mere statement of fact and not treated so an enforceable claim that could be adjudicated upon. 7. As already stated the counter-claim under R.6B of 0.8 could only be of any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing before delivering the defence or before the time limited for delivering the defence has expired. In this case written statement was filed on 31-1-1977 and additional written statement on 28-7-1977. Even taking for granted that the date of filing of the additional written statement could be taken as the outer time limit of the counter-claim, if must have been barred by limitation by 1980. By 1985 when the amendment was applied for the claim must have been hopelessly barred by limitation. Even taking for granted that the date of filing of the additional written statement could be taken as the outer time limit of the counter-claim, if must have been barred by limitation by 1980. By 1985 when the amendment was applied for the claim must have been hopelessly barred by limitation. If a separate suit was filed for such a claim in 1985 it would not have been entertained by the court en account of limitation because even though the bar of limitative does not extinguish the right, it bars the remedy by way of offence like a suit. If such a claim is allowed to be raised by way of amendment of written statement, it will relate back to 1977 and the valuable defence of limitation available to the plaintiff will be taken away. Such an amendment which will deprive the opposite party of a valuable defence will prejudice him in the litigation and it will not be allowed by courts. It has also to be remembered that the amendment application came after the plaintiff has closed his evidence. In that way also prejudice is there. 8. The trial court has evidently acted illegally or at least with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction resulting in prejudice. It is the duty of this Court to interfere in order to avoid the prejudice. It may be true that in an appropriate case the question of limitation itself need not fetter the hands of court in allowing the amendment if that is necessary for doing justice between the parties and solving the real controversy. The case in hand it not one of that type and there is absolutely no reason or justification for allowing such a belated application. The CRP is therefore allowed and the order of the trial court is set aside. No costs. The trial court will see that the suit is tried and disposed of positively within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Office will transmit the records and a copy of this order to the trial court forthwith.