ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order, dated 08.07.2019, passed in I.A.No.260 of 2019 in O.S.No.554 of 2014 by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Premkumar Pothina, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vasam Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the material record.

3. The petitioners herein are the defendants (“defendants” for short) and the respondent herein is the plaintiff (“plaintiff” for short), who filed suit in O.S.No.554 of 2014.

4. The facts, which are necessarily be stated as prelude to the order, in brief, are as follows:

plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.6,96,379/- with future interest thereon and costs based on the goods supplied by it to the defendants. The defendants filed written statement and the issues were settled and the case was coming-up for cross-examination of PW.1. At that stage, the defendants filed counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) seeking the reliefs as under :

“The counter claimant therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a Judgment and Decree in favour of Counter claimants against the defendant/plaintiffs:

(a) To set-off a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) along with interest accrued herein from the claim of the plaintiff.

(b) To declare the Counter claim/damages of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) filed by the counter claimants against the plaintiff for Rs.10,00,000/-.

(c) To award costs of the counter claim in the present suit;

(d) And pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is averred that defendant No.1-company was the first multi-brand electronic store and it ran successfully for some time and subsequently, its business was deteriorated and decided to withdraw from the business and decided to liquidating in stocks in hand, capital assets and clearing their outstanding debts. The defendants in their written statement reserved their right to file counter-claim. Hence, they sought permission to file the proposed counter claim.

6. The plaintiff filed counter affidavit reiterating its case pleaded in the plaint and has taken a specific plea that the amount being claimed by way of counter-claim relates to the transactions that have taken place prior to 2012. Therefore, counter claim is barred by time. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.

7. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application filed by the defendants seeking permission to file the counter-claim by observing that the counter claim is barred by limitation.

8. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present civil revision petition is preferred by the defendants stating that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial Court erred in dismissing the application and it has failed to understand that the cause to the petitioners to file counter claim had arisen only after the respondent filed O.S.No.554 of 2014. The trial Court erroneously concluded that the cause of action arose during the period 2006-2011 and it has dismissed the application on the ground of limitation, which is contrary to law.

9. The plaintiff has filed counter affidavit reiterating their case pleaded in the plaint. It is submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and that the trial Court has rightly refused to file the counter-claim that the same is barred by time. It is further submitted that the impugned order needs no interference.

10. Learned counsel for the defendants vehemently submits that the cause to file counter claim has been accrued during the cross-examination of PW.1 between 26.08.2011 and 26.02.2019, when the plaintiff filed additional documents in support of his clai