JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : Petitioners are defendants in C.S. No.42/2002 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 15.12.2003 and 25.3.2004 passed in the said suit rejecting the applications filed by petitioner No.1 under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Order VIII Rules 6-A and 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement and shifting the burden on the defendants to begin the evidence first. It is alleged in the plaint that after the premature death of late Ruchir Kumar Tri¬pathy his wife Krushnapriya Pani alias Tripathy-opposite party No.1 as plaintiff filed C.S. No.42/2002 praying for recovery of half share out of the three matured L.I.C. Policies held by her late husband. Petitioner No.2 had allegedly withdrawn the amounts on 19th March, 2001 as nominee in the said policy. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement repudiating the aver¬ments made in the plaint. After written statement was filed the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 18 Rule 1 C.P.C. which was allowed and the defendants were directed to begin the evidence. The present dispute centres round the order dated 25.3.2004 by which the trial Court rejected the petition filed by the defen¬dants to amend the written statement and also to prefer a counter claim. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the said order being passed without properly appreciating the facts is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the opposite party, at the other hand, supported the order and submitted that the Court below has taken into consideration all the facts as well as the position of law and the order does not suffer from any infirmity. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party, at the other hand, supported the order and submitted that the Court below has taken into consideration all the facts as well as the position of law and the order does not suffer from any infirmity. 3. To appreciate the inter se submissions, it would be prudent to quote Order VIII Rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code which reads as follows : “Particulars of set-off to be given in written statement (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, no 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, presents a written statement containing the particulars of the debt sought to be set-off”. Admittedly the suit is one for recovery of money from defen¬dant No.1. No claim has been preferred by the plaintiff against the defendant No.2. As per the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6-A CPC, the defendants can set up a counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff. In other words, the right of claim that may be set up by way of counter claim should be against the claim of the plaintiff. Thus there must be some nexus between the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit and the claim set up by defendants by way of counter claim. It is revealed that there is no nexus between the claim made in the suit and the claim set up by way of counter claim. Even otherwise the counter claim cannot be enter¬tained for the simple reason that in one trial two different claims having no connection with each other cannot be effectually adjudicated. In the present case, the plaintiff has not claimed recovery of any sum of money from defendant No.2. Hence defendant No.2 cannot set up a counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff. 4. That apart as it appears from the pleadings the cause of action for raising the counter claim arose on 10.1.2004 wher¬eas the written statement was filed by defendant No.2 on 16.10.2003. Hence defendant No.2 cannot set up a counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff. 4. That apart as it appears from the pleadings the cause of action for raising the counter claim arose on 10.1.2004 wher¬eas the written statement was filed by defendant No.2 on 16.10.2003. Law is well settled that a cause of action which has arisen at a date later than filing of the written statement cannot be set up as a counter claim. In the case Rameswak Kashi¬nath V. Sarafuddin and others reported in AIR 1991 Orissa 51 interpreting Order-VIII Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code this Court observed that a counter claim by the defendant could be made before the time limited for submission of the written state¬ment has expired and in no case at a later stage. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya V. Anil Panjwani reported in 2003(4) Supreme Court 27 observed that the counter claim under Rule-6A of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code must necessarily find its place in written statement and once the right of the defendants to file written statement had been loss or the time limited for delivery of the defence has expired then neither the written statement can be filed as of right nor a counter claim can be allowed to be raised. 5. The sum and substance of the ratio of all the decisions supra leads to an irresistible conclusion that under Order VIII Rule-6A (1), a counter claim can be filed provided the cause of action had accrued before the defendant had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivery of his defence has ex¬pired irrespective of whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. In this cases the written state¬ment was filed by defendant No.2 on 16.10.2003 whereas the cause of action to file the counter claim arose on 10.1.2004. Thus the Court below has rightly rejected the petition filed by the peti¬tioners. After going through the order, I do not find any infirm¬ity or illegality and decline to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Petition dismissed.