A counter-claim can be allowed even after the settlement of issues if it arises from the same transaction or subject matter and preserves the integrity of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 7558 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned 1^st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. The Opposite Party No.1 is defendant No.5 while the Opposite Party No. 2 to 5 are proforma defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the said suit. In the present application, the plaintiff-petitioner questions the correctness of order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Court below whereby, the application filed by defendant No.5 for amendment of his additional W.S. to incorporate counter claim was allowed.

2. The facts, relevant only for deciding the present case are that the plaintiff had filed the suit originally seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property. Defendant No.5 filed his written statement whereupon issues were settled on 05.01.2018. Be it noted that the written statement was filed beyond the statutory period with leave of the Court. The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint by filling appropriate application which was allowed by the Court below on 26.11.2022. Consequently, the plaintiff filed consolidated plaint incorporating additional prayer for declaration that ROR prepared in respect of the suit land incorporating the name of defendant No.1 late Nibas Nayak is erroneous and that the same would not affect his right, title and interest over the suit property along with permanent injunction. Defendant No.5 filed additional written statement in response to the consolidated plaint on 22.03.2023. Again on 10.04.2023, the defendant No.5 filed an application for amendment of his written statement to incorporate counter-claim seeking relief of partition of the suit schedule property, delivery of possession and permanent injunction against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed objection. By the order impugned, the Court below allowed the petition for amendment to incorporate the counter-claim mainly on the ground that in view of amendment to the plaint at the stage of hearing, defendant No.5 was compelled to file the counter-claim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Further, the trial Court also took note of the fact that the suit was posted for framing of additional issues and hearing was yet to commence and therefore, if the counter claim is accepted, the plaintiff will not be prejudiced as he will have the opportunity to file written statement to the counter claim.

3. Heard Mr. B.Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel with Mr. S.S.Bhuyan for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. M.K.Dash, learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.5-Opposite Party.

4. Mr. Bhuyan would forcibly argue that since issues were already settled, accepting the counter-claim is contrary to the statutory provisions. As the same was beyond the time stipulated for delivery of defence as per Order VIII Rule 6 (A) of C.P.C. Mr. Bhuyan, further argues that a time-barred claim cannot be accepted by way of counter-claim. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhyuan has relied upon the following decisions:

1. Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri and Ors. reported in 2020(I) CLR (SC) 168

2. Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani reported in (2003) 7 SCC 350

3. Rohit Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 734

4. Kailash Bhoi (Dead) through Lrs. v. Kailash Chandra Samal (Dead) through Lrs. in CMP no.-1018 of 2017

5. Per contra, Mr. M.K.Dash would argue that it is the settled position of law that if the cause of action for the counter-claim is related to the subject matter of the suit, the coun