HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL REVISION No. - 145 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record. 3. This revision, at the instance of plaintiffs of a suit for injunction, assails validity of the order dated 28.07.2025, whereby an application 89- Ka filed by the defendants-respondents under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that written statement filed earlier in the year 2022 did not contain any such statements or reliefs and now in the year 2025, by way of amendment, counter-claim has been set up. It is further contended that in relation to the property, another suit is pending and, therefore, amendment could not be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that by way of amendment, defendant wanted to bring on record certain transactions of money inter-se parties or their predecessors and the said fact was relevant for deciding the controversy. 6. I have considered the submissions made and have perused the record. 7. The trial court has elaborately discussed the nature of amendment and has recorded a finding that the property involved in the suit as well as in the counter-claim is same and the parties are also common and both the parties claim relief for injunction against each other. An opinion has been Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Santosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.C.Tiwari(Ac), Prabal Singh Surendra Singh And 4 Other .....Revisionist(s) Bhimraj And 5 Other .....Opposite Party(s) formed by the trial court in the facts of the case that both the reliefs claimed can be considered simultaneously and in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, counter-claim can be decided alongwith suit itself. 8. The Court does not find any error in the view taken by the court below as the very purpose of preferring a counter-claim is to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and there appears to be no bar in incorporating the counter-claim in a written statement by way of amendment. Even otherwise, the amendment sought was in relation to relief of injunction for which no period of limitation is prescribed. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 11. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that suit proceedings may be expedited. 13. Considering the same, it is directed that trial court shall decide the suit as well as counter-claim on merits within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it. 14. This direction is subject to co-operation by the parties and their counsel. April 23, 2026 Sazia CLRE No. 145 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad