(Prayer: Civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for records and set-aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 20.04.2026 passed in I.A.No. 4 of 2024 in O.S.No. 208 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Keeranur in so far as it reject the counter claim and direct the learned Subordinate Court, Keeranur to receive the counter-claim filed by the petitioner.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the petitioner to receive the additional written statement along with the counter claim. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the prayer of the petitioner for reception of additional written statement. However, the prayer for reception of counter claim was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking recovery of possession against the petitioner. The written statement was filed in the suit as early as March 2022 and the trial in the suit was already commenced. Now at the time of filing of the present application, D.W.1 was on box.

3. The prayer of the petitioner for reception of counter claim was rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that the same was filed belatedly.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394, categorically held that counter claim cannot be entertained after settlement of issues. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

                   “21. We sum up our findings, that Order VIII Rule 6A of the 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 counter-claim 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 counter-claim, which is pegged till the issues are framed. The court in such cases have the discretion to entertain filing of the counter-claim, after taking into consideration and evaluating inclusive factors provided below which are only illustrative, though not exhaustive:

                   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 counter-claim.

                   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.”

                   (Emphasis supplied by this Court)

5. In the case on hand, D.W.1 was already on box. Therefore, it is clear that issues were framed and recording of evidence was also commenced. In such circumstances, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case law, the trial Court rightly rejected the counter claim filed by the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on the judgment of this Court in C.R.P.1586 of 2019 would submit that counter claim can be filed even after commencement of recording of evidence.

7. The above mentioned order was passed by this Court by relying on the partly dissenting view of Justice Mohan M.Shantanagoudar in the above mentioned Ashok Kumar Kalra's case.

8. In the above mentioned case, the majority opinion is expressed in paragraph 21 of the judgment, which was already extracted. As per the majority view expressed in the above mentioned case law, counter claim cannot be entertained after settlement of issues. Even otherwise in the partly dissenting opinion of Hon'ble Justice Mohan M.Shantanagoudar, it is observed as follows:

                   “57. At the same time, in exceptional circumstances, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and a situation of effective retrial, the Court may entertain a counterclaim even after the framing of issues, so long as the Court has not started recording the evidence. This is because there is no significant development in the legal proceedings during the intervening period between framing of issues and commencement of recording of evidence. If a counterclaim is brought during such period, a new issue can still be framed by the Court, if needed, and evidence can be recorded accordingly, without seriously prejudicing the rights of either party to the suit.”

                   (Emphasis supplied by this Court)

9. As mentioned earlier, in the case on hand, recording of evidence was already commenced and D.W.1 was on box. In such circumstances, even as per the dissenting view expressed in the above mentioned case law, the counter claim filed by the petitioner after commencement of recording of evidence is not maintainable and therefore, I do not find anything to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.