Judgement

DUTT, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby the High Court affirmed the order of the District Judge, Bhopal, dismissing the counter claim by the appellants on the ground that it was barred by S. 14, Treasure-Trove Act, 1878, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The High Court also held that the counter-claim was not maintainable under sub-r. (1) of R. 6A, O. VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the same was filed by the appellants after the filing of the written statement.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely, Babulal, purchased a house in Bhopal in the year 1947 from the sons of one Mannulal. The appellants and the respondents 6 to 8 are the sons of the other three brothers of Mannulal. In the year 1976, respondents 2 to 5, who were the heirs and legal representatives of the said Babulal, started reconstructing or renovating the house and for that purpose they commenced digging the plinth. In the course of digging, a treasure consisting of gold and silver ornaments and also Government currency notes amounting to Rs. 2,900/- was found. The respondents 2 to 5 intimated the discovery of the treasure to the Collector of the District, who issued a notification under S. 5 of the Act requiring all persons claiming the treasure, or any part thereof, to appear personally or by agent before him on the day and place mentioned in the notification. Pursuant to the said notification, respondents 2 to 5, and the appellants and respondents 6 to 8 filed claims before the Collector. It has been held by the Collector that respondents 2 to 5, the finders of the treasure, are the owners of the house from where the treasure was found during excavation undertaken by them with a view to starting reconstruction, and he permitted them under S. 8 of the Act to institute a suit in the Civil Court to establish their right before February 22, 1979.

3. The respondents 2 to 5 instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1979, in the Court of the District Judge, Bhopal, for a declaration of their title to the treasure found by them. The respondents 2 to 5 did not, however, make the other claimants before the Collector including the appellants. parties to the suit. The appellants and respondents 6 to 8 made an application for their addition as parties to the suit under the provision of O. I, R. 10, Civil P.C. The learned District Judge allowed the said application and, accordingly, they were made defendants in the suit.

4. Thereafter, the appellants and respondents 6 to 8 filed their written statement, inter alia, denying the claim of respondents 2 to 5 to the treasure. They claimed title to the treasure.

5. After the filing of the written statement, the appellants filed a counter-claim claiming title to the treasure. It is not necessary for us to state the basis of the claims of the parties to the treasure. The respondents 2 to 5 filed an application praying that the counter-claim should be dismissed contending that it was barred by limitation as prescribed under S. 14 of the Act and that it was also not maintainable under 0. VIII, R. 6A(1), Civil P.C. The learned District Judge came to the finding that the counter claim was barred by S. 14 of the Act and, in that view of the matter; dismissed the counter claim. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Judge, the appellants and the said respondents 6 to 8 moved the High Court in revision against the same. The High Court upheld the order of the learned District Judge that the counter-claim was barred by limitation as prescribed by S. 14 of the Act. The High Court further held that the counter claim having been filed after the filing of the written statement, it was not maintainable under O. VIII, R. 6A(1), Civil P.C. Hence this appeal by special leave.

6. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides, inter alia, for the giving of noti