JUDGMENT : (Viju Abraham, J.) : The above original petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 to P9 orders passed by the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. Petitioners herein are defendants in OS No. 114 of 2013 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba, a suit filed for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction. 2. A commission report was filed in the suit and the petitioners filed an application to remit the commission report which was declined by the trial court, against which OP(C)No. 254 of 2017 was filed which was dismissed as per Ext P3 judgment mainly finding that the petitioners have not raised any counterclaim along with the written statement or made any specific pleading to the effect that any property in possession of the petitioners herein is in the possession of the plaintiff. The petitioners submit that it is on an expectation that OP(C) No. 254 of 2017 will be allowed in their favour that the petitioners did not amend the written statement and raised a counterclaim. Thereafter, the petitioners filed IA No. 9 of 2023 (Ext P4) to amend the written statement including a counterclaim seeking recovery of possession. Thereafter, Ext P5 was filed seeking to amend the written statement. Later on, suit was listed for trial, thereupon Ext P6 application was filed to remove the case from the list. The same was dismissed and consequently, I.A. No. 9 of 2023 (Ext P4) was also dismissed as per Ext P7 order. Petitioners also filed I.A. 10 of 2023 for withdrawing I.A. No. 9 of 2023 and also seeking permission to file another application which was also dismissed as per Ext P8 order. Along with the same, I.A. No. 11 of 2023 was filed seeking permission to amend the written statement along with counterclaim, which was dismissed as per Ext P9. Exts.P6 to P9 orders were issued on 06.06.2023. It is aggrieved by the dismissal of same that the above original petition has been filed. 3. Petitioners relying on Order VI Rule 17 CPC submit that the court is well within its powers to allow amendment of the pleading at any stage of the proceedings if the amendment sought is found to be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Petitioners submit that the delay alone in making an application for amendment cannot be a ground for rejection of the application. 4. Petitioners submit that the delay alone in making an application for amendment cannot be a ground for rejection of the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 8 submits that the contention raised by the petitioners is not bona fide in so far as no valid reason has been stated for the delay in amending the written statement and for raising a counterclaim since the same was filed only on 20.05.2023 when the suit was posted for trial. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 6. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that only on 20.05.2023 application was filed for amending the written statement and for raising a counter claim. The suit is of the year 2013 and the issues were settled as early as on 22.06.2015. Petitioners are raising a counter claim after 8 years of the filing of the written statement. The reason stated for the delay in filing the same is that the petitioners were expecting a favourable order in OP(C) No. 254 of 2017, one filed challenging the rejection of the request made by the petitioners for remitting the commission report. A perusal of the order revealed that OP(C) No. 254 of 2017 was dismissed on 29.10.2021 and the petition to amend the written statement and to raise a counterclaim was filed only on 20.05.2023, the day on which the suit was listed for trial. 7. The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Surendra Agnihotri and Ors., 2019(4) KLT 790 (SC), interpreted the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC regarding the filing of counterclaim. The court after scanning through the various judgments on the point summed up the findings in paragraph 20 as follows: “20. We sum up our findings, that Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure 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 counterclaim 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 counterclaim 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. Similarly of cause of action between the main suit and the counter-claim. vi. Cost of fresh litigation. vii. Injustice and abuses 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.” Though in Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case cited supra the minority view is that in exceptional circumstances counterclaim may be permitted to be filed till the stage of commencement of recording of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, it has also held that propriety requires that such discretion of the court to permit the filing of counterclaim after filing of the written statement should ordinarily be exercised to allow the filing of a counterclaim till the framing of issues. Later on the Apex Court in Mahesh Govindji Trivedi v. Bakul Maganlal Vyas, 2022 (5) KLT OnLine 1167 (SC), after considering the judgment in Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case cited supra found that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A CPC or the decision in Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case will not operate as a bar over the prayer of the party for taking the belatedly filed counterclaim on record, permitted filing of counter claim as the same was filed before framing of issues. 8. Based on the above legal principles, let me consider the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the counterclaim is sought to be introduced after 8 years of the filing of the written statement that too on the date on which the suit was posted for trial. Though OP (C) No. 254 of 2017 was dismissed on 29.10.2021, an application raising a counterclaim was filed only on 20.05.2023. Admittedly, the counterclaim is sought to be introduced after 8 years of the filing of the written statement that too on the date on which the suit was posted for trial. Though OP (C) No. 254 of 2017 was dismissed on 29.10.2021, an application raising a counterclaim was filed only on 20.05.2023. The said delay assumes importance, especially for the reason that the only reason stated for the delay in raising a counterclaim was that the petitioners were under the impression that they would obtain a favourable order in OP (C) No. 254 of 2017. If there was any bona fides in the said stand, the counterclaim ought to have been filed within a reasonable time from 29.10.2021, the date of dismissal of OP (C) No. 254 of 2017, but the counterclaim was raised only on 20.05.2023, that too on the date the case was listed for trial. Further, a perusal of Ext P7 order would reveal that the petitioners have no definite case that 84 cents of property is in the wrongful possession of the plaintiffs and the only case is that if any property is found to be in possession of the plaintiffs, the same should be delivered back to them. Though the present original petition was filed in 2023, this court has not granted any interim orders and the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the trial is going on. The majority view in Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case has enumerated the factors to be looked into while accepting a counterclaim and held that it should not be after framing of the issues. In Mahesh Govindji Trivedi’s case, though the court permitted to accept a belatedly filed counterclaim on record took into consideration that the same had been filed before framing of issues. The minority view in Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case though opined that the counterclaim could be entertained in exceptional circumstances till the stage of commencement of recording of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, also expressed that propriety requires that such discretion of the court to permit the filing of counterclaim after filing of the written statement should ordinarily be exercised to allow the filing of a counterclaim till the framing of issues. None of the parameters enumerated in the judgments cited supra is available in the facts and circumstances of the present case and there are no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the majority view taken in Ashok Kumar Kalra’s case cited supra, especially when the evidence in the case has already started. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no reason to interfere with orders impugned in this original petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.