Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.1232 of 2004 in O.S.No.816 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode dated 6.10.2004.) The suit came to be filed by the respondent as plaintiff originally before the Sub Court, Erode in O.S.No.103/2002 for recovery of the advance amount said to have been paid to the defendant quantifying the claim at Rs.53,133/-. Subsequently due to the change of pecuniary jurisdiction, the case was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Erode and numbered as O.S.No.816 of 2004. 2. Before the transfer of the case to the District Munsif, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the trial commenced before the Sub Court on 1.12.2003 and the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 28.6.2004. Thereafter, when the case was posted for adducing defendant's witness, the defendant has filed a petition invoking Order VIII Rule 6A C.P.C. to file additional written statement raising counter claim, which was opposed. The objection was accepted, resulting dismissal of I.A.No.1232 of 2004, giving cause of action for this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit, that the counter claim should be entertained since it is not barred by limitation, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Whereas it is the case of the respondent, that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to raise the counter claim, if it is genuine; and belatedly a petition came to be filed to drag on the proceedings, that too after the examination of P.Ws.1 to 4. If this petition is allowed, then there should be a fresh trial more or less, which is not the intend of Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C. 4. If this petition is allowed, then there should be a fresh trial more or less, which is not the intend of Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C. 4. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the counter claim does not disclose any cause of action, which is the mandate of Rule 6A of Order VIII C.P.C. since it reads: "A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right of claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff........" If the counter claim is allowed to be lodged, an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to file reply statement, then necessarily all the witnesses have to be recalled and examined, thereby protracting the proceedings and also defeating the very purpose of Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C. On the other hand, if the counter claim is rejected, then there is a possibility for the defendant to file a separate suit also, if necessary. In view of the admitted position, in this case the major portion of the evidence is already recorded and the defendant alone has to get into the box, to deny the right of the plaintiff, in my considered opinion, the claim of the defendant to raise the counter claim by way of additional statement is not permissible and desirable and in this view, the trial Court also dismissed the application, in which I am unable to find any error either on law or on facts. Hence the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the defendant/revision petitioner to file a separate suit, if the claim is otherwise in time. 5. The suit is of the year 2002 and it is said, the plaintiff's side evidence is over. Hence the request of the respondent for early disposal should be conceded. Hence the Principal District Munsif, Erode is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No costs. C.M.P.No.15666 of 2005 is closed.