ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.2022 passed in Civil Suit Case No.27/A/2010 passed by Civil Judge – Class – II, Rajim, District – Gariyaband, C.G. in parties name “Dewantin Bai & another Vs. Chinta Ram”, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the respondent/defendant has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submits that respondent No.1 and 2/plaintiff have filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction for possession of constructed suit house situated at Khasra No.661, 662 measuring area 0.06 and 0.07 hectares. Initially the trial Court dismissed the Civil Suit and passed the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner dated 29.06.2012. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree respondent/plaintiff filed First Appeal which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 12.02.2014, against which the petitioner has filed a Second Appeal No.187/2014. In the said case vide judgment dated 23.03.2022, remanded the matter back to the trial Court by observing that the application filed before the First Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC along with documents shall also be sent to the trial Court for examination of the correctness and genuineness of the documents, which have been taken on record by the First Appellate Court while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties and defendant is also at liberty to file additional documents in support of his contentions. He would further submits that the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order-8 Rule 1(A) CPC for filing documents in rebuttal, but by the impugned order dismissed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. He would next submits that pleading of the adverse possession has already been made in the written statement as the counter claim was not preferred or added in the written statement and the case has been remanded back for adjudicating afresh to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, the trial Court ought to be required to allow the application, hence, finally submits that by rejecting the application which is bad in law, so prays to intervene and set aside the impugned order. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also perused the documents annexed with the petition. It is now well settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Vs. Surendra Agnihotri, (2020) 2 SCC 394 that the counter claim filed under Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC cannot be entertained in any case not after framing of the issue, in the said case, the question referred for clarification as to the interpretation of Order 8 Rule 6 - A of the CPC regarding the filing of counter claim by defendant and the following was answered in Para 17, 18 and 21 as follows :- “17. The time limitation for filing of the counterclaim, is not explicitly provided by the Legislature, rather only limitation as to the accrual of the cause of action is provided. As noted in the above precedents, further complications stem from the fact that there is a possibility of amending the written statement. However, we can state that the right to file a counterclaim in a suit is explicitly limited by the embargo provided for the accrual of the cause of action under Order VIII Rule 6A. Having said so, this does not mean that counter claim can be filed at any time after filing of the written statement. As counter claim is treated to be plaint, generally it needs to first of all be compliant with the limitation provided under the Limitation Act, 1963 as the time barred suits cannot be entertained under the guise of the counterclaim just because of the fact that the cause of action arose as per the parameters of Order VIII Rule 6A. 18. As discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs, the whole purpose of the procedural law is to ensure that the legal process is made more effective in the process of delivering substantial justice. Particularly, the purpose of introducing Rule 6A in Order VIII of the CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by driving the parties to file separate suit and see that the dispute between the parties is decided finally. If the provision is interpreted in such a way, to allow delayed filling of the counter claim, the provision itself becomes redundant and the purpose for which the amendment is made will be defeated and ultimately it leads to flagrant miscarriage of justice. If the provision is interpreted in such a way, to allow delayed filling of the counter claim, the provision itself becomes redundant and the purpose for which the amendment is made will be defeated and ultimately it leads to flagrant miscarriage of justice. At the same time, there cannot be a rigid and hyper-technical approach that the provision stipulates that the counterclaim has to be filed along with the written statement and beyond that, the Court has no power. The Courts, taking into consideration the reasons stated in support of the counter claim, should adopt a balanced approach keeping in mind the object behind the amendment and to sub serve the ends of justice. There cannot be any hard and fast rule to say that in a particular time the counterclaim has to be filed, by curtailing the discretion conferred on the Courts. The trial court has to exercise the discretion judiciously and come to a definite conclusion that by allowing the counter claim, no prejudice is caused to the opposite party, process is not unduly delayed and the same is in the best interest of justice and as per the objects sought to be achieved through the amendment. But however, we are of the considered opinion that the defendant cannot be permitted to file counter claim after the issues are framed and after the suit has proceeded substantially. It would defeat the cause of justice and be detrimental to the principle of speedy justice as enshrined in the objects and reasons for the particular amendment to the CPC. 21. We sum up our findings, that Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC does not put an embargo on filing the counterclaim after filing the written statement, rather the restriction is only with respect to the accrual of the cause of action. Having said so, this does not give absolute right to the defendant to file the counter claim with substantive delay, even if the limitation period prescribed has not elapsed. The court has to take into consideration the outer limit for filing the counter claim, which is pegged till the issues are framed. The court in such cases have the discretion to entertain filing of the counter claim, after taking into consideration and evaluating inclusive factors provided below which are only illustrative, though not exhaustive: i. Period of delay. ii. Prescribed limitation period for the cause of action pleaded. The court in such cases have the discretion to entertain filing of the counter claim, after taking into consideration and evaluating inclusive factors provided below which are only illustrative, though not exhaustive: i. Period of delay. ii. Prescribed limitation period for the cause of action pleaded. iii. Reason for the delay. iv. Defendant’s assertion of his right. v. Similarity of cause of action between the main suit and the counterclaim. vi. Cost of fresh litigation. vii. Injustice and abuse of process. viii. Prejudice to the opposite party. ix. and facts and circumstances of each case. x. In any case, not after framing of the issues.” 4. Taking into consideration the aforesaid principles as the petitioner has already taken plea of adverse possession, so he may take a defence as per law and also he has right to file Civil Suit according to law, as no counter claim is entertained. In any case, after the framing of the issue, so the approach adopted by the trial Court cannot be stated to be suffer from any infirmity so as to call any interference of this Court in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed at motion stage itself.