ORDER : Though the writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4663/2010. That suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,94,626/- with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization. In response to the said plaint, the respondents herein who are the defendants in the suit filed their written statement seeking a counter claim to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on the alleged breach of the contractual agreement dated 08.03.2007. No written statement to the counter claim was filed by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the suit was set down for trial. On 05.08.2016, I.A.No.7 was filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking permission to file the written statement to the counter claim sought by the defendants. That application was rejected by order dated 13.09.2016. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the said application, the plaintiff has preferred this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Petitioner’s counsel submitted that the reason as to why the written statement to the counter claim was not filed was on account of the Trial Court not fixing any date for filing of the written statement as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 6(A)(3) of CPC. He submitted that under the said provision, it was mandatory on the part of the Court to fix a period within which the written statement to the counter claim has to be filed. In the absence of such a period being fixed by the Court, the plaintiff was not obliged to comply with Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on two decisions, namely, (2010) 7 Mah LJ 386 equivalent to (2011) 1 AIR Bom R 126 (Dattaram Krishnanatha Pednekar and others Vs. Pandurang K.Pednekar and others) and Smt.Pushpa Sharma Vs. Civil Judge and others, which is an order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.17219/2010 on 13.09.2011 by the Rajasthan High Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order may be quashed and permission may be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement. 6. Pandurang K.Pednekar and others) and Smt.Pushpa Sharma Vs. Civil Judge and others, which is an order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.17219/2010 on 13.09.2011 by the Rajasthan High Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order may be quashed and permission may be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to Order VIII Rule 6(G) of CPC. He contended that the rules relating to the filing of the written statement by the defendant would apply to the written statement to be filed in answer to a counter claim. That the written statement to the counter claim had to be filed by the plaintiff in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. The same not having been done in the instant case, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. 7. Elaborating the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the counter claim was raised in the written statement which was filed before the Trial Court on 25.10.2010. The Court-fee on the counter claim was tendered on 22.11.2010. Therefore, in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, the plaintiff had to file his written statement thirty days from the day, the counter claim was taken on record, i.e., the date when the Court-fee was paid. The petitioner cannot find fault with the Trial court for not fixing any time for filing of the written statement. He contended that it is the duty of the defendant to file the written statement within thirty days and in the absence of such a written statement being filed in time as in the instant case, being filed nearly six years thereafter in the midst of recording of evidence the same cannot be taken on record. According to him, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application filed for seeking permission to file the written statement. He submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition may be dismissed. 8. According to him, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application filed for seeking permission to file the written statement. He submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition may be dismissed. 8. In response to this submission, petitioner’s counsel reiterated his submissions and contended that unless and until the counter claim is taken on record by the Trial Court and an order is passed on to that effect and time is fixed for filing the written statement, the plaintiff is not obliged to file the written statement to the counter claim. He submitted that there may be defects in the filing of counter claim. The Court-fee on the counter claim may not have been tendered in time. There may be other defects in the counter claim. Therefore, the Trial Court will have to pass an order to the effect that the counter claim is taken on record and grant time to the plaintiff to file the written statement. Therefore, in the instant case, time not having been granted, the plaintiff was not obliged to file the written statement in terms of the Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. 9. The detailed narration of facts above would not require a reiteration except to state that in the instant case along with the written statement, the defendants raised a counter claim. The written statement was filed on 25.10.2010. Thereafter, the Court-fee was paid on the written statement on 22.11.2010. On perusal of the order-sheet of the Trial Court, it is noted that there has been no order passed as such to the effect that the written statement has been taken on record and time being given to file written statement to the counter claim. In the circumstances, the question is whether the plaintiff was obliged to file the written statement to the counter claim in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC has been amended by virtue of the amendment made to the CPC with effect from 01.07.2002. Even prior to that there was insertion of Order VIII Rule 6(A) of CPC, which deals with the filing of the counter claim and Order VIII Rule 6(G) pertaining to rules relating to filing a written statement by a defendant to apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter claim. Even prior to that there was insertion of Order VIII Rule 6(A) of CPC, which deals with the filing of the counter claim and Order VIII Rule 6(G) pertaining to rules relating to filing a written statement by a defendant to apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter claim. The same were added by virtue of the amendment made to it on 01.02.1977. In the circumstances, Order VIII Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 6(A) and Order VIII Rule 6(G) of CPC would have to be harmoniously interpreted. The said provisions read as under: Order VIII: Rule 1: Written Statement:- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. X X X Rule 6A: Counter claim by defendant:- (1) 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: Provided that such counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Such counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. X X X Rule 6(G): Rules relating to written statement to apply:- The rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement file in answer to a counter claim. No doubt, as per Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, the defendant has to file the written statement to the plaint within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him and if the written statement is not filed within the said period, he would be allowed to file the same on such other date as may be specified by the Court after recording of reasons in writing; but the written statement cannot be filed later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC subsequent to its amendment has held that the proviso to the said provision is directory and it is not mandatory in nature. Order VIII Rule 6(A) of CPC speaks about the filing of the counter claim by a defendant, which would be raised along with the written statement filed by the defendant. 10. A counter claim is a claim made by the defendant in a suit against the plaintiff. It is independent of and separate from the plaintiff’s claim. A counter claim gives a cause of action against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. By raising a counter claim, a defendant can defeat the relief sought by the plaintiff. In a suit, a defendant, in addition to his right to plead a set off, can set up a counter claim. While a set off means a claim set up by another by way of a cross-claim. A counter claim, on the other hand is substantially a cross-claim. Prior to the Amendment Act of 1976 to CPC, no counter claim or set off could be claimed except in money suits but by virtue of the Amendment Act of 1976, specific provisions have been inserted to Order VIII as Rule 6(A)(2) and 6(G). A counter claim, on the other hand is substantially a cross-claim. Prior to the Amendment Act of 1976 to CPC, no counter claim or set off could be claimed except in money suits but by virtue of the Amendment Act of 1976, specific provisions have been inserted to Order VIII as Rule 6(A)(2) and 6(G). It states that the defendant may set up by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right of claim in respect of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff, either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has filed his defence. Such counter claim should not however exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, in which, it is filed. A counter claim has the effect of a cross-suit and the Court can pronounce judgment both on the plaintiff’s claim as well as on the counter claim. The counter claim of the defendant would be treated as a plaint as the plaintiff has a right to file the written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant. A counter claim need not have any nexus to the cause of action pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff. Even if the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, dis-continued, dismissed or withdrawn, the counter claim will have to be decided on merits and the defendant has a right to get the decree on the counter claim. Order VIII Rule 6(A)(4) of CPC states that the counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to the plaint. But Order VIII Rule 6(A)(3) of CPC states that the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant “within such period as may be fixed by the Court.” Order VIII Rule 6(A)(G) of CPC states that the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement in answer to a counter-claim. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents while adverting to the aforesaid provisions has submitted that in view of Order VIII Rule 6(G) of CPC in the instant case, the plaintiff was bound to file the written statement to the counter claim within thirty days from the date of filing of the counter claim as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. But the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it may be that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC shall apply to the filing of the counter-claim but the same would apply only in the event, the Court fixes a time for filing of the written statement. The submission is that merely because a defendant in a suit has raised a counter-claim in the written statement would not oblige the plaintiff to file written statement to the counter claim. The counter claim must be in order and filed in accordance with the requisite mandates. For instance, the necessary Court-fee must be paid on the counter claim. The Court has to take on record the counter claim after verifying that it is in order and thereafter pass an order, fixing the time to the plaintiff to file the written statement. The further submission is that in the instant case there being no such order, the plaintiff was not bound to comply with the Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC under which, a written statement has to be filed within thirty days in the first instance. 12. I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as the raising of a counter claim by the defendant in a written statement in the absence of tendering the requisite Court-fee would not make the counter claim be in order and filed in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court would have to first pass an order stating that the counter claim raised by the defendant is in order by verifying as to whether the necessary Court-fee is paid thereon and that it meets all other procedural requirements and thereafter fix the time for filing of the written statement to the plaint in the suit in terms of Order VIII Rule 6(A)(3) of CPC. The reasons for this is not far to see. A counter claim raised in the written statement may not be accompanied by the payment of the requisite Court-fee. There could be other defects in the counter claim such as the written statement containing the counter claim itself being filed contrary to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. After filing the counter claim the defendant may think of withdrawing the same immediately. There could be other defects in the counter claim such as the written statement containing the counter claim itself being filed contrary to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. After filing the counter claim the defendant may think of withdrawing the same immediately. There may be an adjudication on aspects such as payment of Court-fee on the counter claim, limitation, etc., The counter claim may be sought to be amended immediately after it is filed. For the aforesaid and other reasons, before a written statement to a counter claim is to be filed by a plaintiff the Court must formally take on record the counter claim by passing an order thereon and pass an order fixing the date for filing the written statement to the counter claim by the plaintiff. Of course, while fixing the time to file the written statement to a counter claim the Court must bear in mind Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC so that a plaintiff does not take a long or unreasonable time in filing his written statement in the form of a reply to the counter claim. 13. Of course, in the decisions of the Mumbai High Court as well as the Rajasthan High Court, it has been categorically held that Order VIII Rule 6(A)(3) and Order VIII Rule 6(G) would have no nexus to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. In my view and with respect to those decisions, I do not think that it is the correct view of the matter as the plaintiff cannot be given time beyond what has been envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC for the purpose of filing of the written statement to the counter claim. After all, a counter claim is like a plaint in a suit and the reply to it is like a written statement to be filed by the plaintiff in that suit as a defendant. Therefore, the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC would apply even with regard to the filing of the written statement to a counter claim by a plaintiff in the suit. But the said provision would apply only after the Court has taken on record the counter claim and passed an order under Order VIII Rule 6(A)(3) of CPC. Therefore, the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC would apply even with regard to the filing of the written statement to a counter claim by a plaintiff in the suit. But the said provision would apply only after the Court has taken on record the counter claim and passed an order under Order VIII Rule 6(A)(3) of CPC. But while passing such an order, the Court will have to keep in mind the mandate of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. 14. In the circumstances, I find that in the instant case, the Trial Court has not passed any order under Order VIII Rule 6(A)(3) of CPC. Therefore, the plaintiff was not obliged to file the counter claim as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 as no time was fixed by the Court. Therefore, filing of the written statement to the counter claim in the instant case cannot be held to be belated. The Trial Court was not right in dismissing the application seeking to file the written statement, even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is directory and not mandatory. 15. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.09.2016 is quashed. The Trial Court is directed to take on record the written statement filed by the petitioner herein and to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Parties to bear their respective costs.