SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS I. A No. VI filed in the lower court for cmendment of the written statement, whereby, in substance they sought to introduce the relief of counterclaim seeking a declaration as to their title to the temple etc. , and that they are the Wahivatdars and Poojaries of the subject-matter of the suit, etc. , was rejected, by the lower court on the ground that, at the present stage of the suit, the same cannot be allowed It was held that written statement was filed in September 1983, issues were framed on 3-8-1984 and the plaintiff No. 3 was examined as P W. 1, on 28-11-1985. The I A. in question was filed only on 13-12-1985. According to the learned Munsiff, counter claim has to be made on or before filing the written statement, as per Order 8 rule 6-A of the code of Civil Procedure. A decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in bank of Baroda v Gurucharan Singh (AIR 1986 P and H 252) was relied. ( 2 ) A perusal of the written statement as filed earlier shows that, the necessary basic facts leading to the relief now sought to be claimed by the defendants, have been pleaded, at para-9 thereof. The averments now sought to be introduced in no way introduces any new set of assertions. if it is a case of an amendment of the written statement simpliciter under Or. 6 Rl 17 CPC, the leave to amend could have been granted without much pondering over the question. ( 3 ) THE basic question involved here is whether, a counter-claim can be preferred after filing of the written statement. in the aforesaid decision of the High court of Punjab and Haryana, it was held that,-". . . . THE defendant can file the counter-claim before delivering his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence expires. He has also to mention that fact in the written statement. it is thus evident that the defendant can file the counter-claim before he files the written statement, and cannot be allowed to do so by amending the written statement. THE defendant can file the counter-claim before delivering his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence expires. He has also to mention that fact in the written statement. it is thus evident that the defendant can file the counter-claim before he files the written statement, and cannot be allowed to do so by amending the written statement. The object of incorporating the provision for setting up the counter-claim before the filing of the written statement appears to be, that the disposal of the suit may not be delayed In the present case, the defendant has been allowed to set up a counter claim even after the suit had been decreed against him which, in my view, could not be done. " ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge in the above decision understood the language of Or. 8 r. 6a as permitting the counterclaim to be set up only before the defendant delivered his witten statement or before the time limited for delivering the written statement has expired. Order 8 rule 6-A (1) of the CPC reads thus :"6a- (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 counterclaim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not ; provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. " ( 5 ) THIS provision enables a defendant to set up counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff. Such a counter-claim is to be, for any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff. So far, the language is absolutely clear. It is the subsequent phraseology that gave scope for the particular interpretation in AIR 1986 P and H 252. Those subsequent words were understood as related to the point of time when the counter-claim should be set up and was held, to be on or before the time for filing the written statement. So far, the language is absolutely clear. It is the subsequent phraseology that gave scope for the particular interpretation in AIR 1986 P and H 252. Those subsequent words were understood as related to the point of time when the counter-claim should be set up and was held, to be on or before the time for filing the written statement. ( 6 ) ACTUALLY, setting up of the counterclaim which is permitted, was qualified, only by the earlier words as the one "pertaining to any right or claim in respect of a cause of action''. The subsequent words qualify the phrase "cause of action" ie ; Such a 'cause of action' should have accrued to the defendant" either before the defendant delivered his written statemnt or before the time limited for delivering the defence has expired. " In other words, cause of action accruing to a defendant, after the delivery of the written statement or after the time limited for delivering the written statement, cannot be the basis for setting up of a counter-claim under Or. 8 rl. 6a of the CPC. ( 7 ) THE ratio of the decision of Supreme court in Mahendrakumar and another v state of Madhya Pradesh and Vthers ( AIR 1987 SC 1395 ) is to the same effect. It was observed at para-15, -. . . . . . . whether R. 6a (1) of Or. VIII, civil P. C. bars the filing of a counter claim after the filing of a written statement. This point need not detain us long, for R. 6a (1) does not, on the face of it, bar the filing of a counter claim by the defendant after he had filed the written statement. What is laid down under R. 6a (1) is that a counter claim can be filed, provided the cause of action had accrued to the defendant before the defendant had 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. The High Court, in our opinion, has misread and misunderstood the provision of R. 6 (A) (1) in holding that as the appellants had filed the counter claim after the filing of the written statement, the counter claim was not maintainable. The High Court, in our opinion, has misread and misunderstood the provision of R. 6 (A) (1) in holding that as the appellants had filed the counter claim after the filing of the written statement, the counter claim was not maintainable. The finding of the High Court does not get any support from R 6a (1), Civil p. C. As the cause of action for the counter claim had arisen before the filing of the written statement, the counter claim was, therefore, quite maintainable " ( 8 ) IN this case, question of limitation has not been raised at present. The counter claim, in effect, is a claim in a cross-suit. The newly added provisions of Or. 8 Rl 6a and other connected provisions enable the plaintiff to file his written statement to the counter-claim. The object of Or. 8 Rl. 6a, obviously, is to reduce the multiplicity of proceedings, in respect of the claim involved in the plaint and provides for a single trial in respect of rival claims. When the nature of the plaint claim and the defence pleaded in the written statement, substantially covers the relief sought for by the defendant by way of counter-claim, and the trial of the suit has not reached a stage requiring reopening of the trial, there is no reason to disallow the application of the defendant, seeking leave to amend the written statement and put forward a counter-claim. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, this petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The defendants are permitted to amend the written statement as per their I. A. No. VI filed before the trial court. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .