ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.22 WP227 No. 317 of 2025

1 - Sultan Khan S/o Idrish Khan Aged About 64 Years R/o- 1/ A New Bus Stand Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff)

2 - Shabnam Khan D/o Sultan Khan Aged About 33 Years R/o- 1/ A New Bus Stand Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Nagama Khan D/o Sultan Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o- 1/ A New Bus Stand Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Arpit Agrawal S/o Ramkishan Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Mission Road Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

(Defendant)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anu Mishra, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board

17/04/2025

1. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners against the order dated 07.02.2025, passed by learned First District Judge, Korba, in Civil Suit No. A/4/2024, whereby the counter claim filed by the defendant after filing of the written statement has been taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, and they are prosecuting their suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property shown in Schedule-A annexed with the plaint. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 22.03.2024. The summons have been served upon the defendant, who filed his written statement on 22.06.2024, and thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed issues on 29.06.2024. Subsequent to the framing of the issues, the defendant filed his counter claim on 08.10.2024. The counter claim of the defendant was for declaration of title, vacant possession, and for permanent injunction of the suit land. The plaintiffs have filed the written reply of the said counter claim on 07.01.2025 and raised objection that the said counter claim was filed after framing of issues, which cannot be taken on record as provided under Order 8 Rule 6 A of the CPC, therefore, it should be struck off from the record. The learned trial Court rejected the objection raised by the plaintiff, and the counter claim filed by the defendant was taken on record on the ground that the written statement of the counter claim has already been filed by the plaintiffs. She would further submit that, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri & Ors., reported in 2020(2) SCC 394, it clearly mandates that after filing of the written statement, after framing of issues the counter claim cannot be filed, which is exactly the position in the present case also. Therefore, the order passed by learned trial Court dated 07.02.2025 may be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

5. The filing of the counter claim is provided under Order 8 Rule 6 A of the CPC, which reads as under:

“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 st