JUDGMENT 1. THE point raised in this Rule is a short but interesting one. The opposite party no. 1 brought Title Suit no. 325 of 1981 in the 3rd Court of the learned Munsif at Alipore, 24-Parganas, against the petitioner and the opposite party no. 3 inter alia, for khas possession of the suit premises and for ether reliefs. 2. THE case as made out by the opposite party no. 1 in the plaint inter alia was that the suit premises being premises no. 35, Lake Temple Road, Calcutta, originally belonged to the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 purchased the suit premises by a registered Deed of Sale from the opposite party No. 2 on 14. 5. 81. A leave and licence was granted by the opposite party No. 2 to the petitioner and the petitioner used the ground floor furnished flat in the suit premises by virtue of such leave and licence. Inspite of the letter of revocation of licence, the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 did not vacate the suit premises and claimed tenancy right in respect of the same. The time fixed for filing the written statement in the suit was extended by the learned Munsif till 29. 3. 1932. On 29. 3. 1982 along with the written statement the petitioner filed an application purported to be one under Order viii Rule 6a oil the Code of Civil Procedure setting up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the opposite party No. 1 as made in the plaint, inter alia foe declaration of his tenancy right in respect of the suit premises and also for permanent injunction. The opposite party No. 1 filed, his written objection against the petitioner's said counter-claim. The matter was taken up for hearing by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore who by his order No. 18 hated 18. 4. 1983 rejected the said application of counter-claim inter alia upon a finding that the said application ought to have been tiled before the delivery of the defence of the petitioner but the same having been filed along with the written statement on the date for f i ling the written statement could not be accepted as it could nut be said that it was filed before the delivery of defence of the petitioner. The learned Munsif, further held that the said application of counterclaim and the prayer made therein appeared to be as good as plaint of separate suit hence the same could not be allowed. Against the said order the petitioner has novel this Court in revision and obtained the present Rule. 3. THE only point arising in this Rule is whether an application of counter-claim is to be filed before the delivery of defence or it can be filed wrong with the written statement or even afterwards. In other words the question is whether there is any period of limitation prescribed in Order VIII rule 6a of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing the counterclaim. 4. MR. Mrinal Kanti Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended before that under Order viii Rule 6a sub-rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure no period of limitation has been prescribed regarding filing of counter-claim but limitation and/or restriction that has been imposed by the said sub-rule is only regarding the accrual of cause of action against which such counter-claim can be set up and the learned Munsif thus in the proper exercise of jurisdiction vested in him by law should have allowed the said application for counter-claim. Mr. Das has further contended that under sub-rule (2) of the said Rule 6a, the counter-claim shall have the effect of a cross suit and under sub-rule (4)of the said Rule 6a the counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to the plaint and hence the finding of the learned Munsif, that the prayer and the application of the counter-claim appeared to be as good as plaint of separate suit and hence the same could not be allowed is also erroneous and the entire order of the learned munsif thus suffers from material irregularity. Mr. Manas Chakrabarty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, however, has submitted before me that a period of limitation regarding the filing of counterclaim has been prescribed in sub-rule (1) of Order VIII Rule 6a of the Code of Civil Procedure and the said sub-rule clearly provides that such counter-claim is to be filed before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limit for delivering his defence has expired. 5. 5. UNDER the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) there was no prevision foe filing counter-claim except the right to state particulars of set-off in the written statement under Order vii. Rule 6 in a suit for recovery of money. In the decision reported in AIR 1977 Calcutta, 312 (M/s. Daga Films vs. Lotus production and Ors.) it has been held that under the Code of civil Procedure (1903) the counter-claim by itself was incompetent and/or was enforceable toy way of a separate suit. Order viii Rule 6 read with Order XX Rule 19 of the Code empowered the Court to make an order enabling the defendant to claim set-off against the plaintiff's claim and pronounce judgment for the sum due by way of counter-claim in favour of the defendant. of course, in appropriate cases, Courts can always grant equitable reliefs to the defendants, if necessary. 6. UNDER the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 specific provisions have been made for filing counter-claim. Provisions of Order VIII Rules 6a to 6g have been introduced, the code of Civil Procedure (i90 8) by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. Under Order VIII Rule 6a a right has been given to the defendant to file an application of counterclaim separately in addition to his right to state particulars of counter-claim in the written statement, under Order VIII rule 63. In sub-rule (1) of Order VIII Rule 6a of the Code of Civil Procedure it has been provided that the 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 plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. In sub-rule (2) of the said Rule 6a it has been provided that such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counterclaim, and in sub-rule (4) of the said Rule 6a it is provided that the counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. Order VIII Rule 6d provides that even if the suit of the plaintiff is discontinued or dismissed, the counter-claim may nevertheless proceeded with as in the case of a counter-claim written statement is really in the nature of a plaint. So, even if the plaintiff's claim is not pressed or given up or withdrawn or breaks down for any reason whatsoever, the defendant has still the right to get a decree of a counter-claim if so made. Order VIII Rule 6e provides that if the plaintiff makes default in putting in a reply to the counter-claim made by the defendant, the court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter-claim as it thinks fit. Order VIII Rule 6g provides that the rules relation to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-c1aim, Taking together the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2) and (4) of Order VIII Rule 6a of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Rule 6d and 6g of the said. Order it should there be held that when an application for counter-claim has been filed separately, the same should be treated as a plaint in a cross-suit and such plaint is to be governed by the rules applicable to plaints, and the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall also apply to a written statement filed in answer to such counter-claim and such being the position it is now clear that even if the defendant could file a separate suit in respect of the right as set up in the counter-claim, that will not debar the defendant to file counter-claim in respect of the self-same right in a suit brought by the plaintiff against him and the limitation regarding accrual of cause of action in case of such suit should also be applicable in case of such counter-claim. 7. 7. UPON a plain reading of the wordings of the aforesaid sub-rule (1) of Order VIII Rude 6a of the Code of Civil Procedure, it thus appears to me that the defendant can set up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff any right to claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit by the plaintiff but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired and the limitation and/or restriction that has been imposed by sub-rule (1) of Order VIII Rule 6a is only in respect of the accrual of cause of action for filing such counter-claim and in my view such is the intention of the legislature as would clearly appear from the plain reading of the provision of sub-rule (1) Order VIII Rule 6a. The legislature has prescribed a limitation under the said sub-rule (1) only regarding the accrual of cause of action in respect of which such counter-claim can be filed, but no limitation had been prescribed in respect of the time for filing such counter-claim under sub-rule (10 of Order VIII Rule 6a of the code of Civil Procedure. 8. MOREOVER, in the decision of Jagdish Prosad Chowdhury v. Nirsu Singh and Ors. reported, in A. I. R. 1981 Patna at page 68 explaining the wordings "either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired" stated in sub-rule (1) of the Rule 6a of Order VIII of the code of Civil Procedure, it was held that the defendant cannot be allowed to set up by way of counter-claim in respect of a cause of action which arose after he delivered his defence or after the expiry of the date for filing his defence. This restriction was introduced only to avoid the risk of the disposal of the suit getting indefinitely delayed. It should be borne in mind, that a counter-claim is substantially a cross-action and is a weapon of offence which enables the defendant to enforce a claim against the plaintiff effectually as an independent action. This restriction was introduced only to avoid the risk of the disposal of the suit getting indefinitely delayed. It should be borne in mind, that a counter-claim is substantially a cross-action and is a weapon of offence which enables the defendant to enforce a claim against the plaintiff effectually as an independent action. A counter-claim may be set up only in respect of claim, as to which the party can bring independent action in the Court in which the counter-action has been brought, yet the counter-claim need not be an action of the same nature as the original action or analogous thereto and the Court is to treat such counter-claim as a cross-suit and hear the original suit and the counter-claim together if the letter is properly stamped. 9. THUS it appears that filing of counter-claim is an independent right given to the defendant in a suit apart from claiming set off and/or counter-claim in his written statement and the limitation stated in sub-rule (1) Order VIII Rule 6a is only in respect of accrual of cause of action in respect of which the application of such counter-claim can be filed and not in respect of the time for filing such application of counter-claim and in such view of the matter, the impugned order can not be sustained and has got to be set aside. I therefore, make the rule absolute by setting aside the impugned order. The counter-claim filed by the defendant-petitioner along with his written statement be accepted if it is otherwise in form. The learned Munsif is therefore, directed to dispose of the suit and the counter-claim together as early as possible. The records be sent down, immediately. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.