The timing of filing a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A C.P.C. is crucial and must be made before the defendant delivers his defence, regardless of when the cause of action accrued.

1. The present civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, dated 30.9.2010 made in I.A.No.302 of 2010 in O.S.No.63 of

2008.

2. The second defendant in the aforesaid suit is the petitioner herein, the plaintiffs are respondents 1 and 2 and the first defendant is the third respondent.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed the above referred suit against the petitioner as well as the third respondent for declaration of their title over the 'B' schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. In the said suit, the petitioner as well as the third respondent filed an application in I.A.No.302 of 2010 for receipt of the counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the Court below only on the ground that it was filed at the belated stage and the present civil revision petition is directed against the said order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Order VIII Rule 6A C.P.C. does not envisage that the counter-claim shall be filed within a particular period and the Court has got ample power to entertain the counter-claim at any stage. He has also relied on the decision reported in 2008 (1) CTC 369 – S.Thirugnanasambandam vs. Kaliyaperumal Chettiar for the said proposition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contended that Order VIII Rule 6A C.P.C. contemplates that the counter claim has to be filed before the defendant in a suit has delivered his defence. Since the counter-claim was filed later, at a belated stage, rightly the Court below dismissed the application, which does not require any interference in this civil revision petition.

6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing or the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

7. Before adverting to the said contentions raised by the learned counsels on both side, it would be more appropriate to extract Order VIII Rule 6A C.P.C. and the same is extracted here under:-

"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 the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not:

Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

(2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim.

(3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court.

(4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints."

The said provision clearly envisages that a counter-claim could be made by a defendant in a suit before he has delivered his defence or before the time limit for delivering his defence has expired. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the language employed in the said provision envisages that a claim in respect of cause of action accrued to a defendant against the plaintiff after filing of the suit shall be claimed before the defendant delivered his defence, but, however, the cause of action accrued to a defendant against the plaintiff before filing of the suit can be claimed at any time. He further contended that in such circumstances, no time limit has been prescribed under the said p