A counter-claim by the defendant under O. 8, R. 6a of the CPC must be made at the time of filing the written statement or before the time limited for submission of the written statement has expired.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THESE Civil Revisions are directed against the common order passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Cuttack refusing amendment of the written statements under O. 6, R. 17 of the C. P. C. (for short the 'code' ). Defendant 1 is the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the purpose of consideration of the points which arise in the Civil Revisions may be briefly stated. Title Suit No. 212 of 77 and Title Suit No. 213 of 77 between the same parties, though in respect of different lands, were heard analogously. According to the case of the plaintiffs, their predecessors-in-interest acquired the suit lands in the years 1945 and 1946 by way of permanent lease and since then they have been in possession thereof on payment of rent. Defendant 1 with the help of other defendants made preparation to reap the standing paddy crops and so the suits were instituted to restrain defendant 1 permanently from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession thereof. Defendant 1 in the written statements has set up the case that one Ratha Behera acquired the suit lands on the basis of a deed of permanent lease executed on 14-1-1940 by the Zamindar, Chaudhury Bishnu Krushna Das and remained in possession thereof on payment of rent. After his death in the year 1952, his heirs, while in possession thereof, sold the same in favour of Ratnakar Mohapatra by a registered sale deed dt. 17-12-63. After abolition of the estates, Bihari Mohapatra, son of Ratnakar, was recognised as the lessee and the suit lands were settled on him. Bihari Mohapatra conveyed the suit lands in favour of defendant 1 deity through Marfatdar Laxmidhar Jena by a registered deed of gift dt. 15-12-76 accompanied by delivery of possession, whereafter defendant 1 has been in possession thereof on payment of rent.

( 3 ) THE parties went up to the trial and closed their evidence on 29-9-81 and the case was posted to 20-10-81 for argument. On 22-12-81 defendant 1 filed a petition under O. 6, R. 17 of the Code for amendment of the Written Statements. On 7-1-82 it filed two petitions, one for correction of the original petition and the other under O. 6, R. 17 of the Code for further amendment of the written statements. By the proposed amendment, defendant 1, raised two further pleas, namely (i) it has acquired title in respect of the suit lands by adverse possession in case its antecedent title is found to be defective and (ii)it preferred a counter-claim for declaration of its own title in respect of the suit lands valued at Rs. 2000/ -. The plaintiffs opposed the proposed amendment mainly on the grounds that at the fag end of the hearing of the suits, altogether different pleas could not be allowed to be raised and further the counterclaim could not be entertained long after filing of the written statements as envisaged in O. 8, R. 6-A of the Code.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif held that although delay was not an adequate ground to refuse amendment, yet at the fag end of the hearing of the suits, when both parties had led copious evidence with regard to their respective possession, it was not expedient to allow amendment of the written statements permitting defendant 1 to raise the plea of adverse possession because, such a plea in any case would be available to it if the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession within 12 years prior to the institution of the suits. With regard to the counter-claim he relied upon the provisions of O. 8, R. 6-A (1) of the Code and held that after filing of the written statements it was impermissible according to law to allow defendant 1 to amend the written statements by preferring a counter-claim. Accordingly he rejected the petitions.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that for final and effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties relating to the suit lands, it was necessary that the proposed amendment should have been allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the op