JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The plaintiff has instituted a suit, for, rendition of a decree for recovery of Rs.52 lacs along with interest w.e.f., from, 22.12.2013 till realization. The plaintiff's suit, is, anvilled, upon, the factum qua the defendant, in, breach of, the, apt agreement, rather, hence, failing to pay to the plaintiff, his proportionate entitlement (s), vis-a-vis, the statutorily determined compensation amount. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim, by raising a contention, vis-a-vis, hers rather being solitarily entitled qua, the, apt compensation amount, as, determined by the statutory authorities concerned. The afore written statement was instituted, on 8.8.2016. However, subsequent thereto, on 15.12.2016, the applicant/ defendant rather instituted an application, cast under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, wherein, he sought leave of the court, to, incorporate in the prior thereto instituted written statement, the, hereinafter extracted averments:- “6. That admittedly, by Sale Deed dated 27.05.2005, land measuring 1-9-0 bigha was sold by the plaintiff and purchased by the defendant, out of a land measuring 1-19-0 bigha. Consequently, upon such sale only an area of 0-10-0 bigha of land was left in possession of the plaintiff herein. 7. That upon such sale, the defendant became the exclusive owner in possession of the aforesaid land. The plaintiff did not/could not possess any right whatsoever pursuant to such sale. 8. That the sale deed amongst others, contained the following explicit promises of the plaintiff: (a) that the plaintiff was unaware/not any notice/notification for acquisition fo land in question has been issued or know of the plaintiff; (b) that the plaintiff was unaware/nor in the know of any “statutory demand, claim, attachment... or order made or passed by any Authority and attachment... of any Curt of law affecting the aforesaid land...” (c) that the subject land was/is “free from all encumbrances. 9. That the Award No.2/09 dated 24.07.2009 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD (CZ), Mandi, Himachal Pradesh explicitly records that the Himachal Pradesh Government for public purposes had issued Notification No.PBW (B) (A) (7) (I)-89/2004 on 26.02.2005 invoking Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10. That on the face of the aforesaid notification issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government, it is apparent and emphatically established that the plaintiff had wrongly and incorrectly stated in the Sale Deed that no proceedings for acquisition were initiated/or pending. 11. 10. That on the face of the aforesaid notification issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government, it is apparent and emphatically established that the plaintiff had wrongly and incorrectly stated in the Sale Deed that no proceedings for acquisition were initiated/or pending. 11. That quite contrarily, on the date of the execution of the sale dated dated 27.05.2005, the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was already in existence-having been issued on 26.02.2005. 12. That quite contrarily, despite explicitly knowledge and awareness, the plaintiff had incorrectly and wrongly represented before the defendant, for the sale and categorical motive of selling the land in question at the then existing market price, again aware that once the public secured such knowledge, they would refrain from purchasing the land and in turn paying the existing market rate/value. 13. That the plaintiff executed the sale deed dated 27.05.2005 with ulterior, extraneous and dubious motive to unlawfully and illegally profit and simultaneously cause loss/damage to the defendant herein. 14. That in the aforesaid backdrop, realizing that since the land had already been acquired, payment for compensation would soon arise/become due, the plaintiff directed the defendant to sign another agreement the very next day/28.05.2005. 15. That after having received the entire sale consideration and having sold all right, title or interest over the land in question, the plaintiff in an attempt to ensure that any amount of compensation that may otherwise be due to the plaintiff may not be paid to the defendant for the remaining/unsold 0-10-0 bigha, by an abundant precaution, executed the Agreement dated 28.05.2005. 16. That the defendant likewise in an honest and bonafide belief of the Plaintiff's representation/promise, without hesitation executed the said agreement,agreeing that he shall not claim any compensation for the remaining/unsold land of 0-10-0 bigha that belonged to the plaintiff. 17. That based on the aforesaid categorical and explicit understanding, both the plaintiff and the defendant have received compensation under the land Acquisition Act, from the Himachal Pradesh Government in proceedings numbered/registered as Award No.2/09 dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD (CZ) Mandi, Himachal Pradesh; Reference Petition No.150/2012, dated 8.10.2012 passed by the Court of Shri Baldev Singh, District Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh; and Regular First Appeal No (s). 162/2014 and others dated 1.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. 18. 162/2014 and others dated 1.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. 18. That a perusal of land acquisition proceedings adjudicated by/before the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and the High Court emphatically establishes that the plaintiff actively participated in those proceedings and received his due compensation. 19. That a perusal of the aforesaid record, further establishes that the defendant was equally a part in those proceedings, who received their due compensation. In those proceedings, the plaintiff never contended or represented that the defendant was not entitled to such compensation, since the land did not belong to the defendant. 20. That likewise, the plaintiff never contended or represented that the plaintiff was entitled to the compensation that the defendant was claiming/seeking or receiving. 21. That for all purposes, the land acquisition proceedings have been adjudicated and have become final. Both the relevant parties have received their due compensation. Admittedly, the plaintiff never contended or remotely claimed before the Competent authorities that any amount was wrongfully refused to the plaintiff or wrongfully provided to the defendant. 22. That after such proceedings have settled and become final over a period of 11-years, the plaintiff has now filed the present suit with illegal, unlawful and extraneous motive to secure unlawful and unjust gains by misrepresenting facts, records and law. The suit in question is a manifestation of the plaintiff's greed, mischief and unbecoming conduct to obtain unjust enrichment. It is liable to be dismissed with costs throughout. 23. That it is equally liable to be dismissed on grounds of constructive resjudicata and limitation- being hopelessly barred by time. While the Award was passed in 2009, the suit has now been filed in 2015. Since, the claim pertains tot he compensation amount, admittedly compensation was determined by way of the aforesaid Award in 2009. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred.” Apart therefrom, the defendant, also, reared therein, an, apt counter claim. 2. The application was resisted by the plaintiff/non-applicant, by hers instituting a reply thereto, wherein, it stands contended, that, the leave as asked for, be declined to the defendant/applicant, as, the proposed amendments would substantially change, the, nature, and, complexion of the pleadings, as initially set forth, in the prior hereto instituted, written statement, by the defendant/applicant. 3. 2. The application was resisted by the plaintiff/non-applicant, by hers instituting a reply thereto, wherein, it stands contended, that, the leave as asked for, be declined to the defendant/applicant, as, the proposed amendments would substantially change, the, nature, and, complexion of the pleadings, as initially set forth, in the prior hereto instituted, written statement, by the defendant/applicant. 3. Apparently, OMP aforesaid, espouses twin reliefs (i) for securing the leave of the Court, to, incorporate, in, the pre-instituted written statement, the afore extracted averments, and, for leave to take on record, the, enclosed therewith counterclaim. This Court would accord the espoused relief (s) to the defendant/applicant, even if, some delay has occurred in the institution, of the apt application, (i) upon the apt averments, in, respect whereof, the apt leave stands espoused, upon, being rather hence permitted to be incorporated, in, the pre-instituted written statement, (ii) thereupon, the, entire factual scenario appertaining, to, the lis engaging the parties at contest, though, extantly remaining impermissibly, hence, hidden or camouflaged, yet, upon the according, of, the apt leave, its making, its emergence, whereupon, rather the according of the apt leave, being both essential, and, also just, for, thereafter enabling the striking, of, apt therewith issues, (iii) besides for thereafter facilitating the adduction, of, apt evidence thereon, (iv) whereafter this Court, would ultimately render clinching findings, whereunder, the entire gamut of the entire controversial factual matrix, would stand, rather firmly rested. In making determination (s) qua the aforesaid facet (s), (v) when the averments in respect whereof leave, is, sought by the defendant/applicant, hence, make disclosures, in repudiation, of, the claim of the plaintiff, (vi) and, when, the, disclosures qua, the dis-entitlement of the plaintiff, arise from, in contemporaneity of the apt notification, a registered deed of conveyance hence standing executed inter se the litigating parties, (vii) more particularly, with, paragraph No.8 thereof, making clear recitals, qua, the unawareness of the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, initiation, of, processes, for, bringing under acquisition, the, suit property, (viii) besides, the suit property being recited therein, to be free from all encumbrances, (ix) hence, the defendant/applicant contends, that, encumbrances, if any, entailed upon the suit property, arising from, entitlement, if any, of the plaintiff to receive compensation amount, rather obviously hence foundering. Consequently, the aforesaid propagation in denial, of, the title, of, the plaintiff, (x) does embody, an apt factual matrix, besides also encompasses the apt entire gamut of the controversy, whereon, in consonance therewith, contentious issues are enjoined to be struck, besides evidence, is, enjoined to be adduced, and, thereafter apt clinching findings, vis-a-vis, entitlement or dis-entitlement of the plaintiff, qua, the compensation assessed, visa- vis, the suit property, would stand rendered. As a corollary, the, leave as sought, for, hence incorporating in the written statements, the, afore averments, is granted, its, being just, and, essential, for, clinchingly making, the, completest adjudication, upon, all the relevant facts, appertaining tot he suit property, and, for avoiding rather obviable multifariousness, of, litigation. 4. Be that as it may, the amended written statement also encloses, an, apt counterclaim therewith. The learned counsel appearing, for, the plaintiff/non-applicant, canvases that the counterclaim, as, enclosed with the amended written statement, being not permitted, to be taken on record: (i) given it standing imperatively enjoined, upon, the defendant, to, rather rear, a, counter claim, in, contemporaneity, with, his pre-instituted written statement, (ii) whereas, the defendant/applicant not rearing thereat a counterclaim, rather hence, upon the apt leave being accorded, the apt ingredients borne, in Order 8, Rule 6A, of, the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, would obviously stand infringed: “Rule 6A. 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 counterclaim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause action according to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit, but before 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 damage 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 plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.” However, the aforesaid submission, cannot be accepted, as, the learned counsel, appearing for the plaintiff/non-applicant, has hence not borne in mind, the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9, of, the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “9. Subsequent pleadings.- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.” (i) wherewithin, an exception, to, the afore extracted provisions, of, the CPC stand encapsulated, and, wherein, a discretion is foisted, in, the Court, to, permit the defendant, to, even when in the pre-instituted written statement, he fails to espouse a counterclaim, to, rather rear it hence subsequent thereto. The manner, of, exercise of the discretion, foisted in the Civil Courts, under, the aforestated Rule 9 of Order 8, is encapsulated, in, a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as Vijay Prakash Jarath v. Tej Prakash Jarath, reported in (2016)11 SCC 800 , the relevant paragraph No.10 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “9. It is quite apparent from the factual position noticed hereinabove, that after the issues were framed on 18.10.1993, the counter claim was filed by the appellants before this Court (i.e. by defendant Nos.3 and 4 before the trial court) almost two and a half years after the framing of the issues. It is quite apparent from the factual position noticed hereinabove, that after the issues were framed on 18.10.1993, the counter claim was filed by the appellants before this Court (i.e. by defendant Nos.3 and 4 before the trial court) almost two and a half years after the framing of the issues. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the provisions relating to the filing of counter claim, we are satisfied, that there was no justification whatsoever for the High Court to have declined, the appellant before this Court from filing his counter claim on 17.06.1996, specially because, it is not a matter of dispute, that the cause of action, on the basis of which the counter claim was filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4, accrued before their written statement was filed on 11.11.1992. In the present case, the respondent-plaintiff's evidence was still being recorded by the trial court, when the counter-claim was filed. It has also not been shown to us, that any prejudice would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff before the trial court, if the counter-claim was to be adjudicated upon, along with the main suit. We are of the view, that no serious injustice or irreparable loss {as expressed in paragraph 15 of BollepandaP.Pooncha's case, (2008) 13 SCC 179 )}, would be suffered by the respondent-plaintiff in this case.” (p.806) (a) wherein it stands pointedly expostulated, that, unless prejudice, is, demonstrably caused to the plaintiff/applicant/non-counter-claimant, by Courts, hence, according, the apt permission, to, the, defendant, to, subsequent to the pre-instituted written statement, rather rear , a, counterclaim, thereupon, the apt leave rather being grantable, to, the defendant/applicant. Furthermore, in a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in, a case titled as Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya vs. Anil Panjwani, reported in (2003)7 SCC 350 , the relevant paragraph No.28 and 29 whereof, stand extracted hereinafter:- “28. Looking to the scheme of Order 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. Looking to the scheme of Order 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 Rule 1 may itself contain a counter-claim which in the light of Rule 1 read with Rule 6- A would be a counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff preferred in exercise of legal right conferred by Rule 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 Rule 9. In the latter two cases the counter-claim though referable to Rule 6-A cannot be brought on record as of right but shall be governed by the discretion vesting in the Court, either under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC if sought to be introduced by way of amendment, or, subject to exercise of discretion conferred on the Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC 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 would 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 re-opening 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. 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 Rule 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. In the present case, the defendant having felled to file any written statement and also having forfeited his right to filing the same the Trial Court was fully justified in not entertaining the counter-claim 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 counterclaim 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. 29. The purpose of the defendant which was sought to be achieved by moving the application dated 2.5.1995 under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC was clearly mala fide and an attempt to reopen the proceedings, including that part too as had stood concluded against him consequent upon rejection of his application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC. Fortunately, the Trial Court did not fall into the defendant's trap. If only the Trial Court would have fallen into the error of entertaining the counter-claim the defendant would have succeeded in indirectly achieving the reopening of the trial in which effort, when made directly, he had already failed. Fortunately, the Trial Court did not fall into the defendant's trap. If only the Trial Court would have fallen into the error of entertaining the counter-claim the defendant would have succeeded in indirectly achieving the reopening of the trial in which effort, when made directly, he had already failed. There being no written statement of the defendant available on record and the right of the defendant to file the written statement having been closed, finally and conclusively, he could not have filed a counter-claim.” (p.367-368) Wherewithin, more, pointed expostulations, are, borne qua (a) a counterclaim being permissible to be filed, by way of subsequent pleadings, under, Rule 9, Order 8 of the CPC, and, the statutory discretion foisted thereunder, upon, courts of law, being hence exercisable at a stage, (b) when the suit has not progressed, upto, the stage of issues being struck nor evidence stands adduced, upon, the relevant issues, (c) more so when hence it would carry forward, the, mandate of Order 8, Rule 9 of the CPC, and, would also beget apt curtailment, and, obviate multiplicity, of, litigation, inter se the parties at contest. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid expostulation (s) of law, and, when in tandem therewith, the extant suit, has not progressed, upto, the stage of striking of issues, and, nor when evidence stands adduced thereon, and, when the counterclaim, rather foists causes of action, evidently occurring in contemporaneity, with, the institution of the suit, (i) thereupon, for facilitating, the, defendant/counter-claimant to join all causes of action, incorporated therein, and, for also facilitating this Court, to, pronounce a decree, upon, the plaintiff's suit, and, also a decree upon the counter claim, wherein, the, relief of mandatory, and, permanent prohibitory injunction are claimed, with respect to the suit property, (ii) thereupon, this Court is constrained, to, also order that the counter claim be taken on record, preeminently when hence multifariousness, of, litigations would stand obviated, and, also when no demonstrable prejudice would befall, upon, the plaintiff. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant application bearing OMP No. 492 of 2016 is allowed. Consequently, the amended written statement along with counterclaim, be taken on record. The plaintiff is directed to within four weeks from today, file replication to the amended written statement, and, he is also directed to, within, the aforesaid period, institute, a written statement to the defendant's counter claim. List thereafter.