JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.41 of 2015, in O.S.No.500 of 2011, dated 23.02.2017, on the file of the District Munsif, Tenkasi.) 1. The plaintiff, in O.S.No.500 of 2011, is the revision petitioner. Pending the suit, an application in I.A.No.41 of 2015 was taken out by the second defendant, seeking permission to file a counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C. The said application came to be allowed, as against which, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit has been filed for declaration in respect of 300 sq.ft., pursuant to the purchase said to have been made by the plaintiff. The second defendant has filed his written statement initially stating that the plaintiff was entitled to only 300 sq.ft. of vacant land and that the plaintiff could not claim right over any additional area. Subsequently, the second defendant filed the said I.A.No.41 of 2015 to receive his counter claim. 4. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the counter claim has been filed belatedly, when the suit has been posted for trial and that the allegations made in the counter claim are absolutely false and baseless. The reasons given by the second defendant that he was suffering from severe knee pain and was taking treatment in Kerala and therefore, he could not file the claim earlier, was totally false and baseless as the second defendant participated in the inspection conducted by the Advocate Commissioner on 25.05.2014 and therefore, the second defendant has come up with a false case. Further, it is also stated that the application has been taken out after three years and therefore, the relief prayed in the counter claim is also barred by limitation. 5. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, has held that there is no legal embargo to entertain the additional written statement / counter claim and no prejudice would be caused to the other side and allowed the application and received the additional written statement / counter claim. 6. 5. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, has held that there is no legal embargo to entertain the additional written statement / counter claim and no prejudice would be caused to the other side and allowed the application and received the additional written statement / counter claim. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred the above Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the counter claim is sought to be made belatedly; the counter claim runs beyond the scope of the suit, including the prayer in the suit and that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri reported in 2020-2-SCC-394, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the whole scheme of Order VIII CPC unequivocally points out at the legislative intent to advance the cause of justice by placing embargo on the belated filing of written statement, set off and counter claim, and that right to file a counter claim in a suit is explicitly limited by the embargo provided for the accrual of the cause of action under Order VIII Rule 6A C.P.C and that as a counter claim is treated to be a plaint, generally it needs to first of all be compliant with the limitation provided under the Limitation Act, 1963 and time barred suits cannot be entertained under the guise of a counter claim, just because of the fact that the cause of action arose as per the parameters of Order VIII Rule 6A. While concluding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “21. We sum up our findings, that Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC does not put an embargo on filing the counter claim 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. 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. iii. Reason for the delay. iv. Defendant’s assertion of his right. v. Similarity of cause of action between the main suit and the counter claim. 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. ......... 56. The above discussion lends support to the conclusion that even though Rule 6A permits the filing of a counter claim after the written statement, the Court has the discretion to refuse such filing if it is done at a highly belated stage. However, in my considered opinion, to ensure speedy disposal of suits, propriety requires that such discretion should only be exercised till the framing of issues for trial. Allowing counter claims beyond this stage would not only prolong the trial, but also prejudice the rights that may get vested with the plaintiff over the course of time.” 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would place reliance on the said judgment and state that the counter claim cannot be entertained by the trial Court, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the Court has discretionary power to allow the filing of counter claim, even after the written statement has been filed and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is always desirable to permit counter claims and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the Court has discretionary power to allow the filing of counter claim, even after the written statement has been filed and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is always desirable to permit counter claims and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 10. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and looking into the facts of the case on hand, it is seen that the plaintiff has sought for a declaration that he is entitled to declare his title in respect of suit property, which is measuring 300 sq.ft. and for a consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. 11. Curiously, the second defendant, in his written statement originally filed by him, has not denied the right of the plaintiff to the said extent of 300 sq.ft. However, what all he mentioned is that the plaintiff cannot be entitled to anything more than 300 sq.ft. Unfortunately, it was not the case of the plaintiff that he was entitled to any area over and above 300 sq.ft. In the plaint schedule, it is clearly mentioned that the extent is 300 sq.ft. and in respect of such property alone the prayer is sought for declaration and for permanent injunction. 12. However, subsequently, the second defendant has come up with I.A.No.41 of 2015, seeking permission to make a counter claim, viz., a declaration of his right and title in respect of 1096.5 sq.ft. and that the plaintiff has encroached on a portion of the said property to an extent of 94.41 sq.mts. The property in respect of which declaration is sought for in the counter claim is set out item No.1 and the property in respect of which the encroachment is alleged against which relief is sought for is set out in item No.2. 13. On going through the pleadings, I do not find any similarity in the cause of action for the suit and the counter claim. In fact, on going through the affidavit in support of I.A.No.41 of 2015, it is seen that the application along with the counter claim itself came to be filed only after the Advocate Commissioner's Inspection. 13. On going through the pleadings, I do not find any similarity in the cause of action for the suit and the counter claim. In fact, on going through the affidavit in support of I.A.No.41 of 2015, it is seen that the application along with the counter claim itself came to be filed only after the Advocate Commissioner's Inspection. The cause of action pleaded for the counter claim is that from 11.12.2009, the second defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of item No.1 of the suit property in his own right and that in the year 2014, the plaintiff has trespassed into the said item No.1. The cause of action for filing the counter claim is therefore completely distinct from the cause of action on which the plaintiff has approached the Court. Merely because, the parties are same and the properties are adjacent, it will not necessarily lead to an inference that the issues are connected and the claims of both the parties should be tried together. In fact, Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C permits a defendant, in addition to filing his written statement, to set off or file a counter claim in respect of cause of action acquiring to the defendant against the plaintiff, either before or after the filing of the suit and the proviso to said Rule 6A C.P.C states that the counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Thus, two circumstances are against the second defendant in the instant case. Firstly, his counter claim cannot be said to be one against the claim of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's suit is for declaration of his right in respect of 300 sqft, which is, in fact, not even disputed by the defendant in the written statement originally filed. Secondly, the counter claim is in respect of a much larger extent of land and the second defendant himself has put in on record in his written statement stating that even the value of 300 sq.ft. of land for which the suit had been laid is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, the District Munsif Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the said suit. 14. of land for which the suit had been laid is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, the District Munsif Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the said suit. 14. Though I find that the value of the counter claim and the Court fee to be paid thereon is left blank in the typed set of papers, even going by the admitted stand of the second defendant, it can be safely concluded that when he contends that even 300 sq.ft. is of a value in excess of Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, the District Munsif Court lacks jurisdiction, when his counter claim pertains to 1096.5 sq.ft., which is 3 times and more than the suit property in the plaint, it cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, coming within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court. Therefore, the proviso to Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C gets attracted and the counter claim cannot be entertained on this sole ground alone. While the second defendant has made such a statement, it is not understood as to how the second defendant can maintain his counter claim in respect of a larger area measuring 1500 sq.ft odd. Even the relief of mandatory injunction is in respect of 1096.5 sq.ft. Therefore, from this angle, the counter claim is hit by proviso to Order VIII Rule 6-A C.P.C. Further, as already pointed, the cause of action for the suit and the counter claim are distinct and I do not find them to be similar which is one of the grounds on which the counter claim can be entertained as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even insofar as the reasons for delay, the petitioner has stated that in the affidavit that he was suffering from knee pain and taking treatment in Kerala and therefore could not file the application along with the counter claim earlier. However, this fact is strenuously denied by the revision petitioner. A counter affidavit is filed stating that subsequent to the date on which the second defendant claims to have been taking treatment in Kerala, he has participated in the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner in the very same proceedings and thus, the second defendant has adduced false reasons to justify his not filing the counter claim earlier. 15. A counter affidavit is filed stating that subsequent to the date on which the second defendant claims to have been taking treatment in Kerala, he has participated in the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner in the very same proceedings and thus, the second defendant has adduced false reasons to justify his not filing the counter claim earlier. 15. However, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the counter claim is barred by limitation. The counter claim does not mention any particular date on which the encroachment is said to have been made by the plaintiff / revision petitioner and in a suit for declaration of right in an immovable property and for recovery of possession, limitation is 12 years and not 3 years. Therefore, I am not able to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the counter claim is barred by limitation. 16. However, in view of the above discussion and finding that the cause of action is dissimilar and in fact very distinct and the counter claim also being not in the nature of one against the claim of the plaintiff in the suit and in view of the stand taken by the second defendant in the written statement filed originally regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, I do not find any ground for entertaining the counter claim to be tried along with the suit filed by the revision petitioner. However, it is made clear that the second defendant is always at liberty to file a separate suit to work out his remedy before the competent Court having jurisdiction and have it tried in a manner known to law. 17. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order in I.A.No.41 of 2015 in O.S.No.500 of 2011, dated 23.02.2017, on the file of the District Munsif, Tenkasi, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is also made it clear that if any Court fee has been paid on the counter claim, the same may be refunded to the second defendant.