ORDER : 

Binod Kumar Dwivedi, J.

This Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs:

"1) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition.

2) To set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2020.

3) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted to the petitioners."

2. Facts in brief are that the appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 05/03/2020 (Annex.-P/1) passed in Case No.03/2017 by M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby an application filed by the present petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected observing that the application has been filed after the claimant's evidence is already over.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that the amendment application in arbitration case was filed after completion of the claimant's evidence, but to avoid multiplicity of suit, petitioners had filed counter claim by way of amendment application, which ought to have been allowed to determine the real controversy in the claim. If the amendment in the written statement is not allowed, then prejudice would cause to him.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC can be filed before the issues are framed. Since in the instant case, the counter claim has been filed after completion of the claimant's evidence in such a case allowing the counter claim by way of amendment would certainly cause prejudice to the claimant, therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Arbitration Tribunal in dismissing the application. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on para 18 of the judgment by the apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri and Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394 and the order by this Court in the case of Sanjay Dubey Vs. State of M. P. and Another reported in 2012(4) MPLJ 212. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard and considered the rival submissions.

6. It is apposite to reproduce the provisions as enshrined under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC relating to filing of counter claim:

"[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."

7. Counter claim by way of amendment has been filed in the present case for recovery of extra payment of Rs.59,06,629/- along with interest @ 14%. In the present case, it is not a ground that counter claim has been filed for recovery of time barred payment. As per proviso to Section 2-A of Section 7-B of Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 limitation for preferring a reference petition on behalf of the State Government is 30 years. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam is a special Act which has overriding effect over the general provision of the Limitation Act and other laws.