A. 869 16.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 1195 of 2026 Sri Sanjib Burman (Sanjeeb Barman) -versus- Ajoy Das & Ors. Mr. Indrajit Sen Mr. S. Medda Ms. Indralina Sen ..for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated 17th July, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 180 of 2012. By the order impugned the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for leave to file a subsequent pleading for incorporation of the counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. It is not in dispute that the issues in the suit were framed on 12th March, 2016 and the evidence of the plaintiffs already commenced and after that the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioner. The learned trial judge took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. reported at 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1493 wherein it has been held 2 that the defendant cannot be permitted to file counter claim after the issues are framed and after the suit has proceeded substantially as it would defeat the cause of justice and is detrimental to the principle of speedy justice as enshrined in the Objects and Reasons for the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code. In the concurring judgement though it was held that it is not mandatory for the counter claim to be filed along with the written statement, the court in its discretion may allow counter claim to be filed after the filing of the written statement and the propriety requires that such discretion should ordinarily be exercised to allow the filing of a counter claim till the framing of issues for trial. However, it was observed that in exceptional circumstances a counter claim may be permitted to be filed after a written statement till the stage of commencement of recording of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. In the case on hand it is not in dispute that the issues have been framed on 12th March, 2014 and the evidence of the plaintiffs have already commenced and the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed thereafter. The learned trial judge applied the correct legal tests while rejecting the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure by assigning cogent reasons in support thereof. 3 For such reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that rejection of the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for incorporation of the counter claim cannot take away the right of the petitioner to file an independent suit. This order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing of the recourses in accordance with law. Accordingly, C.O. 1195 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)