Judgment 1. Heard Mr. L.N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for opp. party no. 21. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 28.2.2002, whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner defendant under Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) was rejected. 3. It appears that in a partition suit after filing of the written statement defendant no. 20 filed a counter claim against the co-defendant under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Code saying that some of the joint family properties were not included in the Schedule of the plaint. The learned court below after hearing the parties and considering the pleadings held that that the petition filed under Order 8, Rule 6-A was not maintainable against the co-defendant at this stage. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to file such a counter claim in a partition suit even against the co-defendant. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opp. parties, however, submitted that the petition so fiied was not maintainable under Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Code inasmuch as that no counter claim or any objection was raised against the plaintiff, rather it was raised against the co-defendant which was not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the case of Rohit Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) and Ors., 2007 1 PLJR 232 . 6. Mr. Das, on the contrary, submitted that the matter in issue was considered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Govramma V/s. Nanjappa and Ors., AIR 2002 Kant 76 which held that in a suit for partition in a joint family property the claim of the defendant by way oi counter claim was entertainable in terms of Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Order 8, Rule 6-A is very clear on the point. 8. 7. Order 8, Rule 6-A is very clear on the point. 8. Rule 6-A of Order 8 contemplates that a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way 6f 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 ted for delivering his defence has expred, whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. 9. In the instant case, it appears that the defendant petitioner had already filed his written statement much earlier wherein this plea was also taken. It further appears that before expiry of the time limited by the Court this counter claim was filed which, in my view, and at the face of the Rule 6-A of Order 8 was not maintainable. The counter claim, if any, could have been filed against the plaintiff and that also within the time limit prescribed and not after disclosure of the defence at a belated stage. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition, as noticed above the order impugned in my view, does not suffer from any infirmity. 11. This application accordingly is dismissed. 12. The trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.