The defendant in O.S. No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the revision petitioner herein. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for specific performance based on the agreement for sale dated 19.09.1992. In the said suit, the plaintiff/ respondent herein was examined in part. At this stage, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 119 of 2006 under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC seeking leave of the Court to file counter-claim, which was dismissed by the trial court on 14.09.2006. Challenging the said order dated 14.09.2006, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. Mr. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in his written statement has taken a plea that the agreement of sale dated 19.09.1992 is fabricated one; the respondent took possession of the suit property from the petitioners tenants unlawfully; that the respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 372 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore for bare injunction in respect of the very same property; that in the said suit, a handwriting expert was appointed, who filed his report to the effect that the sale agreement dated 19.09.1992 was forged; that the respondent herein abandoned the suit without prosecuting it in order to avoid adverse finding from the Court and thereafter he filed the present suit in O.S. No. 2 of 2005; that in the event of dismissal of the present suit, the possession of the respondent herein would be declared as unlawful, hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a counterclaim otherwise he has to file a separate suit for recovery of possession, that too after indefinite period only when the suit is disposed of ultimately; that the petitioner is a senior citizen; that in the interest of both the parties, the permission sought for by the petitioner to file a counter-claim ought to have been allowed by the trial court, but it failed and prayed for setting aside the same by allowing of the revision petition.

3. Mr. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if the permission sought at this distant point of time is allowed, it would definitely prolong the trial, complicate the smooth flow of proceedings and cause delay in progress of the suit. In any event, after examination of PW1 in part, the petitioner has applied for leave to file the counter-claim, hence, the court below has rightly rejected the application seeking leave to file the counter claim and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

4. This Court carefully considered the argument of counsel for both sides and perused the records. The new Rules 6A to 6G of Order VIII CPC were inserted making statutory provisions for admissibility of counter-claim to enable the defendant to enforce an independent right even unconnected with the claim made in the plaint. As per Section 6A of Order 8 CPC, the counter-claim has to be treated as a plaint and is governed by rules applicable to the plaints. A counter-claim has to be filed within the limitation period and the counter-claim survives despite dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff on account of withdrawal or even on merits. The object of the provisions for setting off counter-claim before filing of written statement is disposal of the suit cannot be delayed.

5. No doubt the object behind providing that a counter-claim must be made at the time of filing written statement or before time limited for submission of written statement has expired is, in case counter-claim is not filed simultaneously with the filing of the written statement, however, the court can allow an amendment so as to permit the defendant to make the counter-claim provided the relief do not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In this case, the bar of limitation and exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court if counter claim is allowed are not canvassed by the respondent.

6. The Honourable Supr