ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. The matter comes up for consideration of an application (APPLW No. 5135/2016) for early listing of the case. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally. Hence, the application (APPLW No. 5135/2016) is disposed of. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for partition against the petitioners for a property, description of which mentioned in para No. 4 of the plaint. The petitioners have filed their written statements, in which they have contended that as a matter of fact the property sought to be partitioned has already come into the share of the petitioners on account of family settlement and the same is in possession of them. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the partition suit for a part of the property is not maintainable and the other remaining property are also to be partitioned. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed issues and thereafter affidavit on behalf of the plaintiffs have been filed, but the evidence of the plaintiffs have not been concluded. 5. At this stage, the petitioners have filed application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC seeking leave of the trial court for filing counter claim. The trial court vide impugned order has rejected the said application and declined to give permission to the petitioners to file counter claim. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners sought leave of the trial court to file counter claim in respect of cause of action arose to them before filing of the written statements, however, the trial court without taking into consideration of this aspect has rejected the application filed by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners sought leave of the trial court to file counter claim in respect of cause of action arose to them before filing of the written statements, however, the trial court without taking into consideration of this aspect has rejected the application filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that as a matter of fact, the counter claim can be filed at any stage of the suit, however, in the present case, the evidence of the plaintiffs have not been concluded and, therefore, the trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC on the ground of delay. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Vijay Prakash Jarath v. Tej Prakash Jarath reported in 2016(3) RLW 2314 (SC). 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that as a matter of fact a cause of action to the petitioners has not accrued till date and, therefore, the counter claim filed by the petitioners is premature. Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the application seeking leave to file counter claim is filed by the petitioners after a delay and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the same. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. In the written statements filed by the petitioners, it is specifically pleaded that partition of the part property cannot be sought and suit for partition can be filed for the whole of the property. 11. Looking to the averments made by the petitioners in their written statements in para Nos.4 as well as 7, it is clear that the cause of action accrued to the petitioners before filing of the written statements. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Prakash Jarath v. Tej Prakash Jarath (supra) has specifically held that if the cause of action in respect of which counter claim is sought to be filed accrue before filing of the defence to the defendant than the counter claim can be entertained. 13. In such circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar is set aside. 13. In such circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar is set aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC before the trial court is ordered to be allowed and the counter claim filed by the petitioners before the trial court is ordered to be taken on record. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit. Stay petition is disposed of.