Heard Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Sidhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the respondent no. 1 on the merits of the case.

2. The plaintiff Darshan Kaur executed a sale deed dated 07.02.2002 in favour of Teji Bai and, subsequently, instituted a suit for the cancellation of the said sale deed. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners who are the sons of Darshan Kaur filed an application for impleadment. Initially, this application was rejected against which the petitioners preferred a writ petition which was allowed and a direction was issued to the trial court to implead the petitioners as contesting defendants in the suit. Accordingly, the petitioners were arrayed as respondent defendant No.4 to 7 in the suit. The petitioners accordingly filed the written statement in which a counter claim was also filed as provided under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C. P. C.). In the counter claim, the petitioners contended that they are also the co-owners of the property in question since it was purchased by their father and that their mother had no right or authority to sell the property. The petitioners accordingly prayed that a declaration be issued that they are the co-owners of the property in question and that the property be partitioned by metes and bounds.

3. The contesting defendant i.e. Teji Bai filed a written statement to the counter claim filed by the petitioners denying the allegation and further contending that this was a collusive counter claim in connivance with their mother, i.e., plaintiff. The objection/written statement filed by Teji Bai was resisted by the petitioners contending that a co-defendant, namely, Teji Bai could not file any written statement to the counter claim of the petitioners, who itself was one of the defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff Darshan Kaur. The trial court, after considering the matter and upon hearing the parties, allowed the written statement of Teji Bai to be kept on record. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

4. The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that a co-defendant cannot file the written statement and consequently, the objections/written statement/counter claim filed by Teji Bai cannot be taken on record. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani 2003 (7) SCC 350 and Rohit Singh & others Vs. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) 2006 (12) SCC 734, wherein it was held that a co- defendant cannot file a counter claim against another co-defendant in a suit.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Teji Bai submitted that her valuable right was being affected by this counter claim and, being a defendant, had a right to file a written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the C. P. C. The learned counsel further contended that the objections so raised by the contesting defendant was not a counter claim but were such objections being brought on record which came into existence during the pendency of the suit. Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the Darshan Kaur has supported the stand of the petitioners.

6. To test the argument of the learned counsel for the rival parties, it would be appropriate to consider the provision. of Order VIII Rule 6A of the C. P. C. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:-

"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 plaintif