JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The challenge in this revision petition, preferred by M/s Pritam Rice & General Mills and another petitioners-defendants No.1 & 2 (for brevity “the defendants”), is to the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P6), by virtue of which, the trial Court has dismissed their application (Annexure P3) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement, so as to enable them to set up the plea of counter-claim. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 3. As is evident from the record that initially, M/s Guru Nanak Traders Commission Agents respondent No.1-plaintiff-firm (for short “the plaintiff-firm”), has instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) against the defendants for a decree of recovery of Rs.15,59,700/-. The defendants contested its claim, filed the written statement dated 7.6.2010 (Annexure P2), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Now the defendants have moved an application (Annexure P3) to set up the plea of counter-claim in their written statement (Annexure P2). The plaintiff-firm refuted their prayer, filed the reply (Annexure P4), strongly denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 5. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, which invites an immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination in the present petition is, as to whether the defendants can be permitted to set up the plea of counter-claim, by way of amendment of the written statement at this belated stage or not ? 6. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative. 7. 6. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative. 7. Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC deals with the counter-claim by the defendant and postulates that “A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of 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 limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not.” That means, the defendant can only be permitted to set up the plea of counter-claim either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired and not otherwise. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled. 8. An identical question came to be decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Gayatri Women’s Welfare Association v. Gowramma and another 2011 (2) CCC 696 (SC) and Bolle Panda R.Poonacha v. Madapa [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1305] : 2008(2) CCC 368 (SC). Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled that if the counter-claim is not set up by the defendant in the original written statement, it should be refused to be taken on record and it is not permissible to file a counter-claim after filing of the written statement. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Thus, the defendants appear to have moved the application (Annexure P3) for amendment of the written statement to set up the plea of counter-claim at this belated stage, only to prolong the agony of the plaintiff and to delay the disposal of the main suit. 9. Thus, the defendants appear to have moved the application (Annexure P3) for amendment of the written statement to set up the plea of counter-claim at this belated stage, only to prolong the agony of the plaintiff and to delay the disposal of the main suit. 9. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly dismissed the application (Annexure P3) of the petitioners-defendants No.1 and 2 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement to set up the plea of counter-claim, by means of impugned order (Annexure P6), which, in substance, is as under:- “In the present case, defendants filed their written statement on 8.06.2010 and issues were duly framed on 3.08.2010 and when the case was fixed for defendant evidence, the present application was filed on 2.08.2011. Thus, in the present case, the defendants/applicants had already filed the written statement, issues had already been framed, the plaintiff evidence was duly concluded in mere three effective opportunities and the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants for fourth and last opportunity when the defendants chose to file the present application. The facts alleged in the amendment application by the defendants/applicants were very much in their knowledge at the time of filing of the original written statement but they never exercised the due diligence in bringing the said facts before the court in their written statement. Their application also does not inspire any confidence as to why the defendants could not allege the facts alleged in this application in their written statement itself, as no cogent & believable reason has been given for said failure. The amendment sought to be made by the defendants at this fag end of suit cannot be said to be bona fide or honest in any manner. This application was moved by the defendants at a much belated stage, although, the counter claim sought to be made in the amendment application can be said to be within the period of limitation but keeping in view the stage at which the same was filed, the bona fides of the applicants are really in question. Further, the defendants/applicants cannot be permitted to lightly withdraw the admissions made by them in their written statement. Further, the defendants/applicants cannot be permitted to lightly withdraw the admissions made by them in their written statement. Accordingly, in view of the totality of the facts as discussed above, no logical and reasonable ground is made out to permit the defendants to amend their written statement. Accordingly, this application for amendment is hereby dismissed.” 10. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and has recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, in the exercise of superintendence power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, so, the impugned order (Annexure P6) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed as such with costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————