JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Even though no one appeared on behalf of other respondents in spite of sufficient service, however, on the date when the arguments were heard, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 stated that interest of respondent No. 2 and other respondents was exactly the same. 2. This is plaintiff’s writ petition, who has filed O.S. No. 408 of 1985 against the respondents. The dispute in the suit relates to a house bearing No. 372. Relief claimed in the plaint is for partition and separate possession of 12/36th share of the plaintiff in the said house. However, in para 13 of the plaint it was stated that plaintiff’s father had purchased adjoining houses bearing No. 373 and 374 through registered sale deed dated 3.3.1994 from one Thakur. In para 14 it was stated that apart from the house in dispute i.e. House No. 372, other joint properties, which were in the nature of agricultural lands, had been divided between the parties during consolidation. Para 13 of the plaint was replied in para 13 of the written statement. The reply was of denial. It was stated that the executant of the alleged sale deed had no right to transfer house No. 373 and 374 and the sale deed was a forged document having no adverse effect upon the rights of the answering defendants. However, it was not stated in the original written statement that defendants were claiming any right in the said houses. 3. In any view of the matter the assertion that the two houses other than the house in dispute were purchased by the plaintiff’s father was redundant having no bearing on the relief claimed in the plaint. 4. In the suit evidence was adduced and the arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved. However, before judgment could be delivered defendants 1 to 5 filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement and also setting up a counter claim. Through the amendment it was stated that the houses No. 373 and 374 were also joint. Counter claim for division of the said house was also made under Order VIII Rule 6-A, C.P.C. Counter claim was valued at Rs. 10,000/- trial Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur Dehat allowed the amendment on 26.3.2001. Through the amendment it was stated that the houses No. 373 and 374 were also joint. Counter claim for division of the said house was also made under Order VIII Rule 6-A, C.P.C. Counter claim was valued at Rs. 10,000/- trial Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur Dehat allowed the amendment on 26.3.2001. Against the said order Civil Revision No. 50 of 2001 was filed, which was also dismissed on 7.3.2002. Hence this writ petition. 5. After discussing several authorities I have held in Moinul Haq and others v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Basti and others, 2007(1) ARC 421, that counter claim cannot be permitted to be filed after conclusion of evidence of both the parties. Para 5 of the said authority is quoted below : “5. Through amendment counter claim for possession was also sought to be added in the written statement. By no stretch of imagination counter claim can be permitted to be filed at the appellate stage. Under Order VIII Rule 6-A, C.P.C. it is provided that a defendant can file counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. The Supreme Court while interpreting the said Rule has held that even after filing of written statement counter claim can be filed. However it has also been held that counter claim can be permitted to be filed only up till the stage when written statement could be filed. After conclusion of the evidence of both the parties there is no question of filing any counter claim. In any case time to deliver defence expires latest by the decision of the suit. In the instant case counter claim was sought to be filed in appeal, hence it was not at all permissible. Reference may be made to : (1) Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR 1987 SC 1395 . (2) Shanti Rani Das Dewanji v. Dinesh Chandra Day, AIR 1997 SC 3985 : 1997 SCFBRC 397. (3) Ramesh Chand Ardwantia v. Anil Panjwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508 : 2003 SCFBRC 454 (4) Mangulu Pirai v. Prafulla Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1989 Ori 50 . (5) Parvathamma v. K.R. Lokanath, AIR 1991 Kant. 283. (2) Shanti Rani Das Dewanji v. Dinesh Chandra Day, AIR 1997 SC 3985 : 1997 SCFBRC 397. (3) Ramesh Chand Ardwantia v. Anil Panjwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508 : 2003 SCFBRC 454 (4) Mangulu Pirai v. Prafulla Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1989 Ori 50 . (5) Parvathamma v. K.R. Lokanath, AIR 1991 Kant. 283. (6) M/s Shoes East Ltd. and others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others, AIR 2001 Del 51 and (7) Hanumanthagouda v. Bandu alias Bandeppa Venkatesh Kulkarni and others, AIR 2001 Kant 10. Recently Supreme Court in Rohit Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2007 SC 10 , has again held that after conclusion of evidence counter claim cannot be permitted to be filed. Latter half portion of paragraph 15 of the said authority is quoted below. “15...........Even assuming that they were properly impleaded, after they had filed their written statement, the suit had gone for further trial and further evidence including that of the interveners had been taken, the evidence again closed and even arguments on the side of the interveners had been concluded. The suit itself was dismissed for default only because on behalf of the plaintiff there was a failure to address arguments. But the suit was subsequently restored. At that stage no counter-claim could be entertained at the instance of the interveners. A counter claim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a counter claim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed. Therefore, the entertaining of the so called counter-claim of defendants 3 to 17 by the trial Court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. On that short ground the counter claim so called, filed by defendants 3 to 17 has to be held to be not maintainable.” 6. Accordingly both the impugned orders are patently erroneous in law. After framing of issues, conclusion of evidence and arguments, counter-claim could not be permitted to be raised. 7. Writ petition is therefore allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Trial Court is directed to decide the suit very expeditiously, as it is quite old. ————