JUDGMENT : Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. 1. The petitioners call in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 1.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No. 435 of 2001 whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court allowed the application of the defendant for amendment of written statement and accepted the counterclaim. 2. The petitioners as plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction impleading the opposite party as defendant in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagatsinghpur, which is registered as T.S. No. 435 of 2001. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement on 20.6.2002. While the matter stood thus, the defendant filed an application for amendment of written statement along with counter-claim on 7.8.2006. The plaintiffs filed objection to the same. Learned trial court came to hold that the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It was further held that a counter-claim by the defendant can be filed provided the cause of action had accrued to him before he had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. The counter-claim can be raised by filing amendment petition even after filing of original written statement. Having held so, the learned trial court allowed the application for amendment of the written statement and accepted the counter-claim. 3. Head Mr. B. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party. 4. The moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether the counter claim can be filed after filing of the written statement? 5. Order 8 Rule 6-A C.P.C. provides for counter claim by the defendant. The same reads as under. B. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party. 4. The moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether the counter claim can be filed after filing of the written statement? 5. Order 8 Rule 6-A C.P.C. provides for counter claim by the defendant. The same reads as under. "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. (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 plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints." 6. In Mahendra Kumar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1987 SC 1395 , the respondents 2 to 5 as plaintiffs instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1979 in the court of the District Judge, Bhopal for a declaration of their title to the treasure found by them. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the appellants and respondents 6 to 8, who are the defendants, filed their written statement, inter alia, denying the claim of the plaintiffs to the treasure. They claimed title to the treasure. After the filing of the written statement, the defendants filed a counter claim claiming title to the treasure. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the appellants and respondents 6 to 8, who are the defendants, filed their written statement, inter alia, denying the claim of the plaintiffs to the treasure. They claimed title to the treasure. After the filing of the written statement, the defendants filed a counter claim claiming title to the treasure. The plaintiffs filed an application praying that the counter-claim should be dismissed contending that it was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 14 of the Treasure-Trove Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that it was also not maintainable under Order 8 Rule 6-A(1) C.P.C. Learned District Judge came to the finding that the counter claim was barred by Section 14 of the Act and in that view of the matter, dismissed the counter claim. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Judge, the defendants moved the High Court in revision against the same. The High Court upheld the order of the learned District Judge that the counter-claim was barred by limitation as prescribed under the Act. The High Court further held that the counter claim having been filed after the filing of the written statement, it was not maintainable under Order 8 Rule 6-A(1) C.P.C. The matter was carried to the apex Court. The apex Court in paragraph 15 of the report held as follows:-- "15. The next point that remains to be considered is whether R.6A(1)of O.VIII, Civil P.C. bars the filing of a counter-claim after the filing of a written statement. This point need not detain us long, for R.6A(1) does not, on the face of it, bar the filing of a counter claim by the defendant after he had filed the written statement. What is laid down under R.6A(1) is that a counter-claim can be filed, provided the cause of action had accrued to the defendant before the defendant had 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. The High Court, in our opinion, has misread and misunderstood the provision of R.6A(1) in holding that as the appellants had filed the counter claim after the filing of the written statement, the counter claim was not maintainable. The High Court, in our opinion, has misread and misunderstood the provision of R.6A(1) in holding that as the appellants had filed the counter claim after the filing of the written statement, the counter claim was not maintainable. The finding of the High Court does not get any support from R.6A(1), Civil P.C. As the cause of action for the counter-claim had arisen before the filing of the written statement, the counter claim was, therefore, quite maintainable. Under Art. 113, Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation of three years from the date the right to sue accrues, has been provided for any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule. It is not disputed that a counter claim, which is treated as a suit under S. 3(2)(b), Limitation Act, had been filed by the appellants within three years from the date of accrual to them of the right to sue. The learned District Judge and the High Court were wrong in dismissing the counter claim." 7. In Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508, the question arose before the apex Court as to whether the counterclaim filed belatedly can be accepted after the defendant is set ex-parte. In paragraph 28 of the report, the apex Court held as follows:-- "28. Looking to the scheme of O.VIII as amended by Act No. 104 of 1976, we are of the opinion, that there are three modes of pleading or setting up a counter-claim in a civil suit. Firstly, the written statement filed under R.1 may itself contain a counter-claim which in the light of R.1 read with R.6-A would be a counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff preferred in exercise of legal right conferred by R.6-A. Secondly, a counter-claim may be preferred by way of amendment incorporated subject to the leave of the Court in a written statement already filed. Thirdly, a counter-claim may be filed by way of a subsequent pleading under R.9. Thirdly, a counter-claim may be filed by way of a subsequent pleading under R.9. In the latter two cases the counter-claim though referable to R.6-A cannot be brought on record as of right but shall be governed by the discretion vesting in the Court, either under O.VI, R.17 of the C.P.C., if sought to be introduced by way of amendment, or, subject to exercise of discretion conferred on the Court under O.VIII, R.9 of the C.P.C., if sought to be placed on record by way of subsequent pleading. The purpose of the provision enabling filing of a counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings and save upon the Court's time as also to exclude the inconvenience to the parties by enabling claims and counter-claims, that is, all disputes between the same parties being decided in the course of the same proceedings. If the consequence of permitting a counterclaim either by way of amendment or by way of subsequent pleading could be prolonging of the trial, complicating the otherwise smooth flow of proceedings or causing a delay in the progress of the suit by forcing a retreat on the steps already taken by the Court, the Court would be justified in exercising its discretion not in favour of permitting a belated counter-claim. The framers of the law never intended the pleading by way of counter-claim being utilized as an instrument for forcing upon a reopening of the trial or pushing back the progress of proceeding. Generally speaking, a counter-claim not contained in the original written statement may be refused to be taken on record if the issues have already been framed and the case set down for trial, and more so when the trial has already commenced. But certainly a counter-claim is not entertainable when there is no written statement on record. There being no written statement filed in the suit, the counter-claim was obviously not set up in the written statement within the meaning of R.6-A. There is no question of such counter-claim being introduced by way of amendment; for there is no written statement available to include a counter claim therein. Equally there would be no question of a counter-claim being raised by way of 'subsequent pleading' as there is no 'previous pleading' on record. Equally there would be no question of a counter-claim being raised by way of 'subsequent pleading' as there is no 'previous pleading' on record. In the present case, the defendant having failed to file any written statement and also having forfeited his right of filing the same the Trial Court was fully justified in not entertaining the counterclaim filed by the defendant-appellant. A refusal on the part of the Court to entertain a belated counter-claim may not prejudice the defendant because in spite of the counter-claim having been refused to be entertained he is always at liberty to file his own suit based on the cause of action for counter-claim." 8. In Rohit Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2007 SC 10 , after the evidence was closed and arguments were heard, the defendant filed the counter-claim. The apex Court held that a counter-claim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a counter-claim can be raised after the issues are framed and the evidence is closed. Therefore, entertaining the so called counter-claim of defendants by the trial court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. In Mangulu Pirai v. Prafulla Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1989 ORISSA 50, the question arose before this Court as to whether a counter-claim can be filed after the filing of the written statement or after the time fixed for the said purpose had expired. Interpreting 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 O.8, R.6A(1) the Division Bench came to hold that the same 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. But any cause of action which may arise after the filing of the written statement by the defendant or after the expiry of the date for filing the defence will not come within the scope of R.6A(1). But any cause of action which may arise after the filing of the written statement by the defendant or after the expiry of the date for filing the defence will not come within the scope of R.6A(1). The restriction regarding the limit of the accrual of the period of the cause of action is based upon 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. 10. In Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya (supra) the defendant has filed the counter-claim after he was set ex-parte and allowed to cross-examine of the plaintiff's witnesses. The apex Court held that generally speaking, a counter-claim not contained in the original written statement may be refused to be taken on record if the issues have already been framed and the case set down for trial and more so when the trial has already commenced. The said observation cannot be read in isolation dehors the context in which it was made. 11. Similarly, the observations of the apex Court in Rohit Singh supra that a counter-claim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a counter-claim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed was made in the facts and circumstances of the said case since the counter-claim was filed after the evidence from both the sides was closed and arguments were heard. Thus, the said case is distinguishable. 12. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2003 SC 3724 has restated the well settled principle of precedent. The apex Court held that a judgment, it is trite, is not be read as a statute. The ratio decidendi of a judgment is its reasoning which can be deciphered only upon reading the same in its entirety. The ratio decidendi of a case or the principles and reasons on which it is based is distinct from the relief finally granted or the manner adopted for its disposal. It is further held that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can be logically deducted therefrom. The ratio decidendi of a case or the principles and reasons on which it is based is distinct from the relief finally granted or the manner adopted for its disposal. It is further held that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can be logically deducted therefrom. In Padmasundara Rao (Dead) and others v. Sate of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 2002 SC 1334 , in paragraph 8 of the said report, the apex Court held that there is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. 13. Thus, when a counter-claim is preferred by way of amendment incorporated subject to leave of the Court in a written statement or a counter-claim is filed by way of subsequent pleading, the same cannot be brought on record as of right, but shall be governed by the discretion vesting in the Court either under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., if sought to be introduced by way of amendment, or, subject to exercise of discretion conferred on the Court under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C., if sought to be placed on record by way of subsequent pleading. The purpose of the provision enabling filing of a counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings and save upon the Court's time as also to exclude the inconvenience to the parties by enabling claims and counter-claims, that is, all disputes between the same parties being decided in the course of the same proceedings. If the consequence of permitting a counter-claim either by way of amendment or by way of subsequent pleading could be prolonging of the trial, complicating the otherwise smooth flow of proceedings or causing a delay in the progress of the suit by forcing a retreat on the steps already taken by the Court, the Court would be justified in exercising its discretion not in favour of permitting a belated counter-claim. 14. The instant case may be considered on the anvil of the decisions cited supra. The defendant filed a written statement on 20.6.2002. Thereafter issues were settled. 14. The instant case may be considered on the anvil of the decisions cited supra. The defendant filed a written statement on 20.6.2002. Thereafter issues were settled. On 7.8.2006, the application for amendment of the written statement along with counter-claim was filed. On a cursory perusal of the application for proposed amendment to introduce the counter-claim vide Annexure-1, it is evident that the cause of action arose on 13.7.2006, i.e., four years after the filing of the counter-claim. Since the cause of action had accrued to the defendant after he delivered his defence, learned trial court fell into patent error in allowing the application for amendment of the written statement and accepting the counter-claim. 15. In the result, the order dated 1.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No. 435 of 2001 is quashed. The petition is allowed. Petition Allowed