In the present case, the grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the defendant-respondent has taken some unnecessary pleas with a view to delay the trial. In a suit for recovery, the pleas of fraud and fabrication etc. are generally taken to avoid liability. Respondent has taken various pleas in the written statement. In case, the plaintiff-petitioner succeeds in proving his case and the defendant-respondent fails in establishing the defence set up by him, the suit of the plaintiff will be decreed. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that at this stage, it would not be appropriate to strike of para-2 of the written statement claimed by the petitioner. The fact that the pleadings taken in para-2 of the written statement could have only been taken by way of counter-claim, is also without any merit. It is for the defendant to take all the pleas available to him and set up any counter-claim if so advised. The fact that the counter-claim has not been set up by the defendant does not entitle the petitioner to seek striking off para-2 of the written statement.