JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Jasbir Singh defendant no. 1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 2.3.2005, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, thereby dismissing the application moved by defendant no. 1 – petitioner for review of order dated 22.9.2004, Annexure P/2 whereby application of petitioner for amendment of written statement to add counter claim was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 3. Respondents no. 1 to 4/plaintiffs have filed suit against the petitioner and proforma respondents no. 5 to 7 as defendants claiming damages for murder of Baljinder Kaur allegedly committed by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 after his acquittal in murder case vide judgment dated 7.4.2003 filed application for amendment of written statement to make counter claim for recovery of money on account of loss suffered by him by remaining in custody in the criminal case since 4.3.2000 till 7.4.2003. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 22.9.2004, Annexure P/2. Another application moved by defendant no. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) was also dismissed by the trial court vide separate order dated 22.9.2004, Annexure P/3. Application for review of order Annexure P/2 has been dismissed by the trial court vide order Annexure P/1. 5. Counsel for the petitioner on 29.5.2012 restricted his revision petition and counter claim against plaintiffs only and not against Rajinder Singh and Harbans Singh who were also sought to be added as parties for the purpose of counter claim. Consequently, the only question to be determined in the instant revision petition is as to whether defendant no. 1 – petitioner can be permitted to make counter claim by amendment of written statement. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that cause of action to make counter claim arose on 7.4.2003 on acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case and therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to make the counter claim by amendment of written statement. It was submitted that counter claim can be made even if cause of action for the same has arisen after filing of written statement but before leading of evidence by the defendant. It was submitted that counter claim can be made even if cause of action for the same has arisen after filing of written statement but before leading of evidence by the defendant. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Kumar and another versus State of M.P. and others, AIR 1987 SC 1395 . 7. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that amendment of written statement cannot be declined on the ground of the claim being barred by limitation because question of limitation can be adjudicated upon after the amendment is allowed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaja and another versus Yellappa (Dead) by LRs and others, 2004(6) Supreme Court Cases 415. Counsel for the petitioner also referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K.N. Pillai versus P Pillai and another, AIR 2000 SC 614 wherein it was laid down that application for amendment of written statement cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay in filing the same. 8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner is seeking amendment of the written statement to make counter claim. Consequently, judgments in the cases of Pankaja (supra) and B.K.N. Pillai (supra) which pertain to amendment of written statement in general (not for raising counter claim) are not applicable to the instant case because in the instant case, petitioner wants to amend the written statement to make counter claim. 10. Admittedly, cause of action for the alleged counter claim arose long after filing of the written statement by defendant no. 1 – petitioner. Consequently, in view of provision of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC, the matter cannot be raised by way of counter claim because cause of action for the same arose after filing of the written statement. According to the said provision, counter claim can be made even after filing of written statement but cause of action for the counter claim should have arisen before the filing of the written statement and not before production of evidence by the defendant. Judgment in the case of Mahendra Kumar (supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner goes against the contention of the counsel. Judgment in the case of Mahendra Kumar (supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner goes against the contention of the counsel. It has been held in that judgment that counter claim can be raised by amendment of written statement even if the written statement had been filed but cause of action for the counter claim should have arisen before the filing of the written statement. In the instant case, cause of action allegedly occurred to the petitioner after filing of the written statement. Consequently, the said counter claim cannot be made in the instant case. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ---------------------- Kuldeep Singh v. Davinder Singh