JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiffs are the Petitioners in this Civil Revision against the order allowing amendment of the written statement so far as the counter claim. 2. Suit is for title, possession and consequential permanent injunction. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in their written statement filed on 24-6-1981 while disputing Plaintiffs' assertion made a counter claim of their title in respect of the suit land. When the suit was pending, Plaintiffs made construction on their own land to obstruct which Defendants filed a suit for injunction. Such suit having been dismissed, appeal was filed. They filed an application for amendment of the written statement making counter claim which Plaintiffs assert to be the same as the claim in their suit. Plaintiffs objected to the application for amendment. Learned Munsif having allowed the amendment, this Civil Revision has been filed assailing the order. 3. There is no dispute that by amendment of the written statement counter claim has been made in respect of cause of action arising after filing of the written statement and counter-claim. Mr. M. Patra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in view of the clear language of Order 8 Rule 6-A, CPC there is no scope for filing a counter-claim after filing of the written statement and as such, amendment to written statement introducing a counter-claim could not have been allowed. 4. Order 9 Rule 6-A, CPC reads as follows: 6.A. 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 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 expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) 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 counter-claim. (2) 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 counter-claim. (3) The Plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the Defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a point and governed by the rules applicable to point. 5. Aforesaid provision was subject matter of consideration of this Court in 1985 (1) O.L.R.256 Shri Shri Kashi Biswanath Dev represented by Laxmidhar alias Lakhan Jena v. Paramananda Routrai and Ors. In that case Defendant sought to introduce counter-claim of title by amendment. It was held that by amendment of written statement such a counter-claim cannot be made. Same view was taken in Prafulla Kumar Samantaray Vs. Smt. Ranjita Samantaray. Correctness of both the decisions was subject matter of consideration of the division Bench in the decision reported in Mangulu Pirai Vs. Prafulla Kumar Singh and Others. Overruling the decisions of this Court to this effect, it was held; ... the words " either before or after filing of the suit but before the Defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired" appearing in Order 8, Rule 6-A(1) mean to limit the right of the Defendant 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 only. In other words, the enabling provision introduced by the 1976 amendment entitles a Defendant in a suit to 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 him 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 expired". But any cause of action which may arise after the expiry of the date for filing the defence will not come within the scope of Rule 6-A(1). There is no other limitation for filing a counter claim as otherwise that would defeat the law of limitation. But any cause of action which may arise after the expiry of the date for filing the defence will not come within the scope of Rule 6-A(1). There is no other limitation for filing a counter claim as otherwise that would defeat the law of limitation. The restriction regarding the limit of the accrual of the period of the cause of action is based upon the sound public policy, as otherwise the Defendant may go on filing one counter-claim after another against the Plaintiff in the same suit until it was disposed of and thus the suit may be indefinitely delayed. Earlier two Single Judge decisions were overruled to this effect. 6. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Defendants opp. parties submitted that Division Bench of this Court has now settled the law that counter claim can be made by amendment of the written statement confronted with the observation of the Division Bench that counter-claim cannot be entertained in respect of cause of action arising after filing of the written statement. Mr. P.K. Mishra, submitted that the said question was not the subject matter of decision by the Division Bench. It is an observation only, without taking into consideration Order 8, Rule 8, CPC which reads as follows: R.8. New ground of defence. Any ground of defence which has arisen after the institution of the suit or the presentation of a written statement claiming a set-off (or counter-claim) may be raised by the Defendant or Plaintiff as the case may be in his written statement. Mr. Mishra submitted that under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6-A a counterclaim is to be treated as a plaint. Under Rule 8 ground of defence arising after filing of the suit or written statement claiming set off or counter-claim can be raised in defence either by the Defendant or the Plaintiff. These provisions read together leads to a reasonable inference that a counter-claim can be amended in respect of cause of action arising after filing of the written statement. 7. Order 8, Rule 8, CPC clearly provides that a ground available subsequently can be raised as a defence and not as a ground for relief. It does not provide that a new claim can be made. Rule 60 also throws light on the question. It reads as follows: 6.-C. Exclusion of counter-claim. 7. Order 8, Rule 8, CPC clearly provides that a ground available subsequently can be raised as a defence and not as a ground for relief. It does not provide that a new claim can be made. Rule 60 also throws light on the question. It reads as follows: 6.-C. Exclusion of counter-claim. Where a Defendant sets up a counter-claim and the Plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the Plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter-claim may be excluded, and the Court may on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit. This rule provides that Plaintiff may apply to the Court at any time before settlement of issues not to be disposed of in the suit and may be so disposed of in an independent suit. In case counter-claim is allowed to be amended after issues are settled because a cause of action acrose after settlement of issues, Plaintiff would not get opportunity to exercise the right given under Rule 6-C. In view of the discussion as made above, Rule 8 would not enable a Defendant to amend the written statement on a new ground for counter-claim. Even if Rule 8 was not considered by the Division Bench, a correct observation was given by the Division Bench. 8. In conclusion, Mr. Patra is correct in his submission that trial Court exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity in allowing the application for amendment of the written statement making counter-claim in respect of cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the counter-claim. Rejection of the application, however, would not bar the Defendant to file a separate suit which if filed will be considered on its own merits. 9. In the result, Civil Revision is allowed. No costs: Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed