##PAGE1##

1 MP-4369-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 4 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 4369 of 2025

RAMJEE SINGH AND OTHERS

Versus

SHRIRAM SINGH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Naveen Kumar - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Kapil Rohra - Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

Shri Avnish Khatri - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent No.2/State.

ORDER

By way of the present Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated

09.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has partly

allowed the application for amendment in written statement by permitting

certain paragraphs to be inserted in the written statement but rejected that

part of the proposed amendment whereby the counter claim was sought to be

inserted in the written statement.

2. The suit was initially filed in the year 2018 and written statement

was filed in the year 2018 itself. The issues were settled and thereafter, the

case was set out for Plaintiff's evidence. At the stage of Plaintiff's evidence,

an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment was filed whereby the

defendants sought to amend certain pleadings in the written statement so also

wanted to insert counter claim. The Trial Court though has allowed certain

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH

Signing time: 2/5/2026

4:57:06 PM

2 MP-4369-2025

amendments to the extent of amendment of written statement but that part of

proposed amendment whereby by way of amendment counter claim was

sought to be inserted, has been turned down.

3. The case is at the stage of Plaintiff evidence and though evidence of

the Plaintiff's witnesses has not started till the date of filing of the

amendment application however, this fact is not in dispute that issues have

already been settled long before and thereafter, the case had been fixed for

Plaintiff's evidence.

4. The larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok

Kumar Kalra v. Surendra Agnihotri, (2020) 2 SCC 394 has conclusively held

that in no case counter claim can be filed after framing of the issues. The

larger bench in para 21 held as under:-

"21. We sum up our findings, that Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC

does not put an embargo on filing the counterclaim after filing the

written statement, rather the restriction is only with respect to the

accrual of the cause of action. Having said so, this does not give

absolute right to the defendant to file the counterclaim with

substantive delay, even if the limitation period prescribed has not

elapsed. The court has to take into consideration the outer limit for

filing the counterclaim, which is pegged till the issues are framed.

The court in such cases have the discretion to entertain filing of

the counterclaim, after taking into consideration and evaluating

inclusive factors provided below which are only illustrative,

though not exhaustive:

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH

Signing time: 2/5/2026

4:57:06 PM

3 MP-4369-2025

(i) Period of delay.

(ii) Prescribed limitation period for the cause of action

pleaded.

(iii) Reason for the delay.

(iv) Defendant's assertion of his right.

(v) Similarity of cause of action between the main suit and

the counterclaim.

(vi) Cost of fresh litigation.

(vii) Injustice and abuse of process.

(viii) Prejudice to the opposite party.

(ix) And facts and circumstances of each case.

(x) In any case, not after framing of the issues."

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance

on a judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in M.P.No.5606/2024

(Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Santosh Kumar Gupta) to state that if actual

evidence has not been recorded then counter claim can be filed. However,

this judgment is based on minority view of the larger bench judgment which

was contained in para 60 and in the aforesaid para 60 of minority view, it has

been held that till actual commencement of recording of evidence of

Plaintiff, counter claim may be permitted to be brought on record.

6. However, the aforesaid judgement of the coordinate bench is based