Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 12:55:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.661 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

Jyotsnamayee Dash …. Petitioner -versus-

Seema Agarwal … Opposite Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. Bichitra Narayan Satapathy, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

8^th December, 2025 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.N. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 2^nd April, 2025 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bargarh passed in CS No.34 of 2014, wherein the prayer for amendment of the written statement of the defendant to insert the counter claim has been rejected.

Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 12:55:26

3. Present opposite party is the plaintiff who filed the suit praying for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction along with consequential reliefs. The defendant (present petitioner) appeared in the suit and filed her written statement. Thereafter the suit proceeded and the evidence from the side of the plaintiff was closed. The defendant also examined two of her witnesses and did not complete her evidence. On 10^th February, 2025 before completion of evidence from her side, the defendant filed a petition praying to insert counter claim in the written statement seeking relief of cancellation of two sale deeds as void and further to declare her right, title, interest over the property along with permanent injunction against the plaintiff. This prayer of the defendant was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that it is submitted at a very belated stage.

4. Rule 6-A permits for filing of counter claim by the defendant with the discretion on the court to refuse acceptance of the same at a belated stage. The provision under Rule 6-A of Order 8 C.P.C. is reproduced bellow for better appreciation.

6-A. Counter-claim by defendant. (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 12:55:26 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.”

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while explaining the effect of delayed filing of counter-claim has laid down the law for acceptance of the same and the time period in that respect. In Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 394, Hon’ble Apex Court have held as follows:-

“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 Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 12:55:26 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 limi