Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010173762025 2026:GAU-AS:8809 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/315/2025 SAIDUR RAHMAN TARAFDAR AND 3 ORS. S/O LATE MAYEN UDDIN TARAFDAR, R/O VILL- BONGHUGI, MOUZA- TITAPANI, P.S.- KALGACHIA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM 2: RAKIBUL ISLAM TARAFDAR S/O LATE MAYEN UDDIN TARAFDAR R/O VILL- BONGHUGI MOUZA- TITAPANI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 3: ATAUR RAHMAN TARAFDAR S/O LATE MAYEN UDDIN TARAFDAR R/O VILL- BONGHUGI MOUZA- TITAPANI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 4: JOWAHOR ALI TARAFDAR S/O LATE DANES ALI TARAFDAR R/O VILL- BONGHUGI MOUZA- TITAPANI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSA VERSUS ISMAIL HUSSAIN AND ANR S/O LATE SONA ULLAH, R/O VILL- BONGHUGI, MOUZA- TITAPANI, P.S.- KALGACHIA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319 Page No.# 2/6 2:ISAB ALI S/O LATE SONA ULLAH R/O VILL- BONGHUGI MOUZA- TITAPANI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR M HUSSAIN,MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR. A K AZAD Advocate for the Respondent : R MANDAL, S K PODDAR,MR. C SHARMA,MS. N PODDAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 18.06.2026 [1] Heard Mr. N. Haque, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, the learned counsel for both the respondents. [2] This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners, impugning the order dated 12.03.2025, passed by the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Barpeta, in connection with Title Execution Case No. 02/2022, whereby the application filed by the present petitioners under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave to file counter-claim was rejected by the trial court. [3] Mr. N. Haque, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/6 petitioners has submitted that the present respondents had filed a title suit against the present petitioners seeking relief of declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land. In the said suit the present petitioners had filed their written statement on 04.04.2022. However, during the pendency of the said suit, on 11.05.2023, the present petitioners claimed that they were dispossessed from the suit land and as such, they filed an application for filing an additional written statement as well as counter claim under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was rejected by the impugned order. [4] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reasoning by the trial court for rejecting the prayer of the petitioners is not appropriate as it has observed that if before 11.05.2023, the present petitioners were in possession of the suit land, they could have very well file a counter-claim seeking relief of confirmation of possession. [5] He submits that same was not necessary as the petitioners were already in possession and they were dispossessed only on 11.05.2023. He further submits that while dismissing the petition under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioners, the trial court also did not consider the fact that the dismissal of leave to file counter-claim would Page No.# 4/6 only result in multiplicity of suits as in the event of not allowing the petitioners to file counter-claim, they have to file a fresh suit. He submits that the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of not avoiding the occasions which would give rise to multiplicity also. [6] In support of his submissions, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and Ors.” reported in “2009 AIR (SC) 2029”. [7] On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Poddar, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for grant of leave to file counter-claim at a belated stage. He submits that the statutory provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars filing of a counter-claim in respect of any cause of action accruing to the defendants against the plaintiff after the defendants have delivered defence or before the time limited for delivery of defence has expired. He submits that in the instant case, the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave of the court was filed by the present petitioners much after submissions of their written statement by the present petitioners. He submits that in fact the suit is at the stage of evidence of plaintiffs witnesses and the Page No.# 5/6 plaintiffs have already submitted their evidence-on- affidavit before he trial court. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has cited a ruling in the case of “Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors.” reported in “(2020)2 SCC 394.” [8] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. [9] Though, the reasoning by the trial court in disallowing the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the present petitioners, i.e., “if the petitioners were in possession of the suit land, they could have sought relief of confirmation of possession at the time of filing their written statement” may not be very sound reasoning. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the embargo contained in Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the limitation within which a counter-claim may be filed by defendants is squarely applicable to this case. It appears that the present petitioners filed their written statement on 04.04.2022 in the Title Suit No. 02/2022, denying the contentions of the plaintiffs and it is after more than one Page No.# 6/6 year from that date, i.e., on 11.05.2023, the petitioners are claiming to have been dispossessed from the suit land. As such, it is a clear case where the cause of action accruing to the present petitioners against the respondents has arisen after filing of the written statement by the present petitioners or before the time limit for delivering of defences expired and as such, a counter-claim is barred by limitations provided under Order 8 Rule 6A(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The present petitioners may, however, bring a fresh suit for the said cause of action subject to the law of limitations. [10] With the above observations, this civil revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant