ORDER

1. By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 24.5.2024 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Katni, whereby the trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application preferred under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’].

2. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for eviction so also for recovery of arrears of rent under the provisions of section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’]. Though the defendant/petitioner had filed written statement on 15.9.2019, but thereafter on 8.12.2021, he had filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking permission to file a counterclaim in respect of recovery of an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- which he had spent over the renovation of rented premises, and therefore, he had claimed that not only the amount of arrears of rent be adjusted in the same, but the remaining amount be also paid to him. In turn, the trial Court has rejected the application saying that the counterclaim is barred by time as it could have been filed as per the limitation prescribed under Order 8 rule 6 of the C.P.C. that too at the time of filing of written statement. According to the trial Court, it is a suit for recovery of amount and Order 8 rule 1 of the C.P.C. very clearly provides a period of 90 days for filing the written statement from the date of serving the notice of plaint, therefore, the counterclaim filed by the defendant, according to the trial Court, was held to be barred by time.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though limitation for set-off has been prescribed under Order 8 rule 6 of the C.P.C., but no limitation for filing a counterclaim is prescribed under Rule 6(a). He has also submitted that even otherwise for filing a counterclaim, the limitation starts from the date of filing the suit because in the written statement filed by the respondent, he has very specifically pleaded about the amount spent over the renovation of rented premises and, therefore, the cause of action as has been shown for filing the counterclaim starts from the date of filing the suit i.e.12.10.2018 and even otherwise, the limitation for filing the suit of recovery is three years, the counterclaim was well within the limitation and as such, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that so far as the set-off is concerned, the defendant can raise a set-off under Order 8 rule 6 of the C.P.C. within the limit of amount which was claimed to be recovered by the plaintiff in the plaint, but the amount of Rs.22,00,000/- was exceeding to the said limit, therefore, the defendant was required to file a counterclaim and the set-off could not be claimed seeking recovery of the amount which exceeds the amount claimed by the plaintiff to be recovered. In support of his stand, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases reported in AIR 2016 SC 1304 [Vijay Prakash Jarath v. Tej Prakash Jarath], 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 [Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another] and also 2017 (3) M.P.L.J. 717 [Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Manohar Lal].

5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned order passed by the trial Court, has submitted that limitation for filing the counterclaim has also been prescribed under Order 8 rule 6(a) of the C.P.C. He has also submitted that the limitation of 90 days for filing the written statement is prescribed under Order 8 rule 1 of the C.P.C. and counterclaim should have been filed within the said period, but the written statement was filed by the defendant without raising the counterclaim and that has been raised later after filing the written statement, a