APHC010287672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1416, 1547 & 1548 of 2025 Between: K. Aravinda Rani, W/o K. Srinivasa Murthy, Aged about 80 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o D.No.1/66/2, Vaishnavi Nagar, Tiruchanoor, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District) ...Petitioner AND 1. Penaguluru Lakshmi Devi, W/o P. Suresh Babu, Aged about 32 years, R/o D.No.9/187-13, Vontela Nagar, Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, Annamayya District (Erstwhile Kadapa District) 2. The Sub Registrar, Renigunta Sub Registrar Office, Renigunta, Tirupati District (Erstwhile Chittoor District) ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.M.L.Neelima Counsel for Respondent No.1: M/s.CKR Associates The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S. No.288 of 2018 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, aggrieved by the separate orders dated 25.2.2025 passed in I.A. Nos.33, 35 and 21 of 2024, filed the present Civil Revision Petition Nos.1416, 1547 and 1548 of 2025 respectively, and the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondent No.1 herein is the defendant No.1 in the said suit filed I.A. No.33 of 2024 under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to file counter-claim in the suit on the 2 premise that she is having right over the suit schedule property. I.A. No.35 of 2024 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement by adding counter claim pleadings. In view of the application made seeking permission to file counter claim, she filed I.A. No.21 of 2024 under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC to frame additional issue to the effect that she is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the counter claim. The learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, vide separate orders allowed the said applications and the present revision petitions are filed against the orders passed in the respective I.As. 3. Heard Ms.M.Neelima, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Also heard Mr.Shaik Md. Umar Abdullah, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the chronological events filed along with the Memo dated 23.1.2026, made submissions to the effect that the above referred suit was instituted on 05.11.2018 seeking a decree for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 31.10.2015 and for permanent injunction against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, her husband, their henchmen, agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/ plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. She submits that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed her written statement on 28.1.2019 and the issues were framed on 17.3.2020, that initially the petitioner filed I.A. No.18 of 2024 seeking amendment of the plaint, however the same was dismissed as not pressed. On the same day, learned counsel submits that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed the above mentioned I.As., i.e., I.A. No.33 of 2024 raising a counter claim and the other two consequential applications. She submits that the petitioner resisted the said applications by filing counters, but the learned Trial 3 Court vide the orders under revision erroneously allowed the I.As., without considering the matter in the proper perspective. She submits that apart from the oral arguments, the petitioner filed written arguments before the Trial Court and contended that application for counter claim cannot be allowed after framing of the issues, more particularly in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri 1 . She submits that overlooking the said judgment, the learned Trial Court went wrong in allowing I.A. No.33 of 2024 by opining that if the counter claim is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties as an opportunity would be afforded to prove their respective case. She submits that in the said view of the matter, the learned Trial Court, consequently allowed I.A. Nos.35 and 21 of 2024. While submitting that the learned Trial Court had not exercised jurisdiction vested in it in the correct perspective, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned orders while placing strong reliance on the decision in Ashok Kumar Kalra referred to supra and the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth vs. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 made submissions to sustain the orders under revision. He submits that in view of I.A. No.18 of 2024 for amendment of the plaint, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed I.A. No.33 of 2024 seeking permission to file counter claim. However, he has not disputed the fact that I.A. No.18 of 2024 seeking amendment of the plaint was not pressed by the petitioner and the counter claim application i.e., I.A. No.33 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on 13.2.2024 i.e., four years after framing of the issues on 17.3.2020. The learned counsel 1 (2020) 2 SCC 394 2 2025 (6) ALD (SC) 1 4 further sought to impress upon this Court by making submissions with reference to Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC. He submits that in the light of the legislative intention, the filing of counter claim is in accordance with Law and that at any rate, the petitioner/plaintiff will have an opportunity to contest the counter claim on the basis of the evidence lead by the parties and the view taken by the Learned Trial Court in this regard, cannot be found fault with. He also submits that the filing of counter claim will enable the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Making the said submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 urges for dismissal of the revision petitions, as the same are devoid of merits. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 7. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned orders warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” Point: 8. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to the relevant factual aspects of filing of the written statement by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, framing of the issues by the learned Trial Court on 17.3.2020 and the dismissal of I.A. No.18 of 2024 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff as the same was not pressed. While that being the position, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed I.A. No.33 of 2024 raising a counter claim along with the other two applications. 9. With regard to filing of counter claim in a suit, the Law is no more res integra. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 5 Ashok Kumar Kalra referred to supra was dealing with a reference placed before it by a Two Judge Bench, wherein clarification has been sought as to the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC regarding the filing of counterclaim by a defendant in a suit. In the light of the submissions made before it, the Hon’ble Supreme Court formulated the following issues for consideration: "6.(1)(i) Whether Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC mandates an embargo on filing the counterclaim after filing the written statement? 6.(2)(ii) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative, then what are the restrictions on filing the counter claim after filing of the written statement? After discussing the issues with reference to Order VIII Rule 6 and Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC and the relevant case law, by a majority view at paragraph No.21, it was 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 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: (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. 6 10. While partly supplementing and partly dissenting, His Lordship Justice M.M.Shantangoudar (as he then was) agreed with the conclusion that the Court may exercise its discretion and permit the filing of counterclaim after the written statement, till the stage of framing of the issues by the Trial Court, however opined that in exceptional circumstances, the subsequent filing of the counterclaim may be permitted till the stage of commencement of recording of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. 11. In Rajul Manoj Shah case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with an appeal filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat, wherein the High Court set aside the order passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by the defendant in the suit for amendment of the written statement and filing a counterclaim. One of the contentions advanced before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the counterclaim was filed after the issues are formulated by the Trial Court. The said contention was upheld and referring to the judgment in Ashok Kumar Kalra case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.24 of the judgment, laid the guiding principles with regard to determining the time frame for filing a counterclaim set out therein, inter alia held that the High Court committed an error in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court by permitting the filing of counter claim and set aside the judgment of the High Court. 12. In the light of the above referred judgments, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. Further, when a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is placed for consideration, the Trial Court has to consider the same, which it appears was overlooked in the present case. Be that as it may. 7 13. For the afore-going reasons, the order passed in I.A. No.33 of 2024 is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly, set aside. In the light of setting aside of the order in I.A. No.33 of 2024, the consequential orders in I.A. Nos.35 and 21 of 2024 are also set aside. Accordingly, the point is answered. 14. In the result, C.R.P. Nos.1416, 1547 and 1548 of 2025 are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J January 31, 2026 vasu