ORDER A.K. Mishra, J. 1. Plaintiff has preferred the present revision aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned trial Court allowing incorporation of the counter-claim in the written statement filed by the defendant No. 2, Zahur U1 Haque vide Order dated 11-8-1998. 2. In short, the factual matrix giving rise to the present revision indicates that plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit in the year 1994 on deriving title on the strength of sale/deed executed on April 4, 1991 executed by Dakhobai in favour of the present plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff has prayed for cancellation of sale deed dated August 5, 1994 executed by defendant No. 1 Harishankar in favour of Zahur Ul Haque, defendant No. 2. The suit was filed in November, 1994. 3. The defendants filed a written statement on January 20, 1996 taking the plea that sale deed executed by Dakhobai in favour of the plaintiff was wholly ineffective being nominal and void transaction and was without consideration. However, in 1998 by way of amendment counter-claim was raised seeking a declaration to the effect that sale deed executed on April 4, 1991 was illegal and void. The trial Court has allowed the application and imposed cost of Rs. 100/-. The said Order passed by the trial Court has been impugned in the present revision. 4. Learned counsel Shri K.L. Mangal appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner has raised various submissions in Order to assail the order. His first submission is that cause of action as shown in the application for amendment has arisen after the filing of the suit, hence the same could not be allowed to be incorporated. His further submission is that challenge to the sale deed dated 4-4-1991 has become barred by limitation for the reason that Article 58 of the Limitation is applicable and limitation for seeking declaration with respect to the sale deed being void and ineffective is three years. It is also submitted that the application was moved after four years of the filing of the suit. The same was late, was not bonafide and another suit could have been filed by the defendant-respondent, hence impugned Order deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Vinod Bharadwaj has submitted that it is a case where foundation has been laid in the written statement with respect to the relief claimed by incorporating the counterclaim. The same was late, was not bonafide and another suit could have been filed by the defendant-respondent, hence impugned Order deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Vinod Bharadwaj has submitted that it is a case where foundation has been laid in the written statement with respect to the relief claimed by incorporating the counterclaim. His further submission is that such a declaration has not become barred by limitation as the possession is that of defendants-respondents. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P., so as to contend that even after filing of the written statement, counter-claim could be filed subject to the law of limitation as prescribed under the Limitation. He also drew attention of the Court to the decision of the Apex Court in another case, namely Smt. Shanti Rani Das Dewanjee v. Dinesh Chandra Day, and contended that filing of counter-claim under Order 8 Rule 6-A, C.P.C. is not barred after filing of the written statement. Reliance is also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Sawaria v. Natwarlal 1992 (2) MPWN 80 in which the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar (supra) was respectfully followed. 6. After hearing both the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the revision is without merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. The first submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decision in Jagdish Prasad Chowdhary v. Nirsu Singh and Ors., that cause of action arising after delivering of the defence cannot be allowed to be set up by way of counter-claim is not attracted in the present case as the basic cause of action had arisen out of the sale deed dated 4-4-1991 which is shown to be illegal and ineffective. Though it is true that certain averments have been made that counter-claim has been filed in view of certain Court orders but that cannot by itself construe to be the cause of action. The sale deed out of which cause of action arose was in existence before the filing of the written statement and as such it cannot be said that cause of action has arisen after filing of the written statement. 8. The sale deed out of which cause of action arose was in existence before the filing of the written statement and as such it cannot be said that cause of action has arisen after filing of the written statement. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the relief prayed for by way of counter-claim has become barred by limitation. For this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Oriental Ceramic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation 5. Rangaraju Naidu v. Tiruvarakkarasu and T.L. Muddukrishna and Anr. v. Lalitha Ramachandra Rao. In the case of S. Rangaraju Naidu (supra), the relief of specific performance was disallowed to be added after lapse of seven years being barred by limitation as prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Same is the factual situation obtaining the case of T.L. Muddukrishna (supra). In the case of Oriental Ceramic Products Pvt. Limited (supra), the Calcutta High Court has also taken the view that if limitation with respect to the relief claimed has expired such counter-claim cannot be allowed to be raised. There is no dispute about the proposition so canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. From the averments raised in the written statement it is clear that it is not disputed that the defendant No. 2 is in possession. Moreover, in the written statement the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is shown to be illegal and void. In such a case limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act is not attracted. Counter case is not for cancellation of such instrument. Defendant is not party to sale deed. It has been executed in an unauthorised manner by a stranger. Hence, the counter-claim raised by the defendants cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Gurucharan Singh, so as to contend that counter-claim can be set up by defendant before filing written statement and he cannot do so subsequently by amending the written statement. This Court is of the opinion that the said decision is running counter to the decisions of the Apex Court in Mahendra Kumar (supra) and Smt. Shanti Rani Das Dewanjee (supra) and as such the same does not lay down a good law. This Court is of the opinion that the said decision is running counter to the decisions of the Apex Court in Mahendra Kumar (supra) and Smt. Shanti Rani Das Dewanjee (supra) and as such the same does not lay down a good law. From a bare reading of Order 8 Rule 6-A it is clear that the two riders for filing the counter-claim are-- (i) the cause of action had accrued before the defendant had delivered his defence, and (ii) it is filed before the time limit for filing counter-claim as provided in the Limitation Act has expired. The submission hence is liable to be rejected. 11. In the result, I find no merit in the revision. The same is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.