JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, original plaintiff in RCS No.168/2008 filed by him in the year 2008, is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, dated 12.07.2021 whereby, the counterclaim filed by the defendants has been allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.8000/- to be paid to the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

4. Before ruling upon the correctness of the impugned order, few facts are necessary to be narrated. The petitioner/original plaintiff is the tenant in the suit premises owned by the predecessor of the defendants Nos.1 to 5. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in Block No.6, on the third floor of the building for the last 53 years on payment of monthly rent and the receipts to that effect are also passed. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that the building, which consisted of four floors, has become dilapidated and it requires repairs on some portions including the terrace, slabs and the gallery. Time and again, the petitioner/plaintiff requested the landlord to carryout repairs, but there was no response, which constrained him to issue the notice to permit him to carryout necessary repairs. Being unsuccessful in his attempt, the plaintiff filed RCS No.168/2008 seeking mandatory injunction permitting him to have an access upto the top floor of the building so that he can carryout necessary repairs to the dilapidated portion. The declaration was also sought to the effect that the defendants shall not obstruct the plaintiff in carrying out required construction.

5. In the backdrop of the said suit, the respondents/defendants put their appearance and filed their Written Statement and also additional written statement on deletion of some of the defendants. The issues were settled by the learned Trial Court on 27.03.2017. On 10.02.2021, the plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit and being in the box, was cross-examined by the advocate for the defendants on two dates being 15.03.2021 and 20.03.2021.

6. While the cross-examination was in progress, on 08.06.2021, an application (Exhibit-133) was taken out by the defendants by invoking Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which, the counterclaim was raised under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act against the plaintiff. The application was vehemently opposed by the plaintiff on the ground of delay and by submitting that the trial has reached at an advanced stage where, the plaintiff is already under cross examination, therefore, the purport of Order VIII Rule 6-A would not permit the counterclaim to be raised at the time when the defendants have already delivered their defence.

On consideration of the rival contentions, the application came to be allowed under the impugned order dated 12.07.2021, which has been assailed in the present Writ Petition.

7. The learned Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394 and by noting that the aforesaid judgment is an authoritative pronouncement on the subject, the learned Judge held that in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the counterclaim and the suit ought to be decided together and therefore, has allowed the counterclaim vide the impugned order, subject to payment of costs of Rs.8000/-.

8. Rule 6-A of the Order VIII, which contains a provision for filing of the counterclaim along with the Written Statement, reads thus :-

“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 counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to