ORDER :

PRAYER: This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2011 in O.S.No.577 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, dated 01.11.2011.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order passed by the Court below allowing the application filed by the respondent to file an additional written statement along with the counter-claim.

2. The petitioner filed a suit before the Court below against the respondent seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner became the owner of the property by virtue of a sale deed executed by one Gurusamy Devar and he has put up a construction in the property and that the respondent is attempting to trespass into the property.

3. The respondent filed a written statement in April 2010, wherein, the respondent had specifically traced her title to the property by virtue of an assignment that was given by the Government in favour of the respondent's husband. The respondent took a further plea that the petitioner has fabricated documents and has illegally trespassed into the property and constructed a building and the petitioner has absolutely no right over the property.

4. After completion of the pleadings, the issues were framed and the case was taken up for trial. P.W.1 was examined in chief and the case was at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1. At this stage, the respondent filed an additional written statement and also made a counter-claim in the additional written statement, seeking for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and possession. This additional written statement was filed along with an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for the leave of Court to file the additional written statement along with the counter-claim.

5. The Court below after considering the submissions made on either side had allowed the application on the ground that the counter-claim will have to be considered along with the suit filed by the petitioner, since it also involves the same parties and the same property and rejecting the application will only lead to multicipility of proceedings.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no cause of action for the respondent to file the counter-claim, more particularly, after the respondent had filed the written statement in the suit. The learned counsel further submitted that by virtue of the counter-claim, certain properties which are not even the subject matter of the main, suit has been sought to be brought in and the same goes beyond the scope of the counter-claim. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent ought to have filed a separate suit and sought for necessary reliefs and the respondent cannot be allowed to do it by means of setting up counter- claim in the suit filed by the petitioner.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the counter-claim can be filed even after framing of the issues and by allowing the counter-claim, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and in fact, it will only prevent multicipility in the proceedings. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Prakash Jarath Vs. Tej Prakash Jarath reported in 2016 (2) MWN (Civil) 443.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

9. After amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, the counter-claim can be set up by the defendant either at the time of filing the original written statement or by amending the written statement already filed or by filing an additional written statement. In the present case, the respondent has sought to set up a counterclaim by filing the additional written statement. This is very well permissib