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. 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. Particu