THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CRP No. 291 of 2009 ORDER: This revision has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the orders in IA No. 1276 of 2008 in OS No. 513 of 2005, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Mancherial, Adilabad District allowing the said IA preferred by the respondents/defendants granting them leave to file additional written statement containing counter claim. The suit OS No. 108 of 2002 was initially filed on the file of Junior Civil Judge, at Luxettipet in June, 2002. The said court framed the following two issues on 23.8.2002: 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants over the suit land as prayed for? 2) Whether the defendants are the owners of the suit land? And whether they are in possession of the same. The said suit was subsequently made over to the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial and it was renumbered as OS No. 513 of 2005. PW1 was examined on 5.12.2006. Pws 2 and 3 were examined on 26.6.2007. PW4 was examined on 9.10.2007. DW1 was examined on 5.3.2008. At this stage, IA No. 1276 of 2008 has been moved by the respondents/defendants under Order VIII Rules 8 and 9 of the CPC r/w Section 151 seeking leave for filing additional written statement with counter claim over the suit land measuring 0.06 ½ gts in Sy. No. 90, Theegal Pahad Revenue village, M.R. Mancherial, Adilabad District. It is their case that on 19.10.208, the petitioners – plaintiffs have illegally tresspassed into the suit land and interfered with the possession of the respondents – defendants and also denied the title of the respondents to the said land. IA No. 1276 of 2008 has been allowed with a cryptic order which runs as under: “Heard. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed.” I have heard Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.R. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Principal Junior Civil Judge committed a grave error in granting leave to the defendants before him for filing an additional written statement containing counter claim, for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the alleged cause of action that had arisen on 19.10.2008. In the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 1276 of 2008, the following are the crucial statements of fact made : “3. I submit that I and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the absolute owners and possessors of the sut land measuring 0-06 ½ guntas in sy. no. 90 of Theegalpahad. We have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. 4. I submit that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the main suit on false and baseless allegations. In fact they have got no right over the suit land. 5. I submit that we have already filed the written statement in the month of June, 2003. While the suit is pending the respondents/plaintiffs illegally tresspassed into the suit land and interfered with our possession and denied our title over the suit land on 19.10.208. 6. I submit that we propose to file the additional written statement with counter claim for declaration of title and for permanent injunction, on the cause of action which accrued after filing of our written statement.” Therefore, they prayed for leave for the additional written statement with counter claim seeking declaration of their title over the suit schedule land and for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession. Learned counsel submits that while a counter claim can be made after filing of the written statement, but the same cannot be filed after the suit has reached the stage of being decided finally. Any such attempt to allow the counter claim to be lodged now amounts to a clear abuse of the power. Further, while allowing the application, learned Judge ought to have assigned reasons indicating on what lines he has applied his mind to the facts on record. For the sheer absence of reasons, the application, IA No. 1276 of 2008 deserves to be dismissed. Further, issue No. 2 which was framed and set for trial in the suit has comprehensively dealt with the very question as to the claim of the ownership over the suit schedule land by the defendants and hence the present application has been taken out by the defendants only for the purpose of ensuring that the suit does not get decided in quick time. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar[1] and Bollepanda P.Poonacha v. K.M.Mandapa[2]. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC does not bar a counter claim to be presented after the written statement of the defendant has been filed. But, however, what is required is that such a counter claim be presented only with the leave of the court and the contents of Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC clearly indicate wide discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave subject to such terms as the court may deem fit. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P.[3] in support of his contention that filing of a counter claim by the defendant after he had filed the written statement is per se not barred by Rule 9 of Order 8 CPC. It is important to notice that Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC has conferred wide discretion in the court in granting leave for presenting a set off or a counter claim after the defendant had filed his written statement. The primary object behind this provision is to ensure that what might have been omitted inadvertently or unintentionally in the written statement filed earlier to be stated for purposes of either denying or clarifying the facts set out in the pleadings of the opposite party. Only for the purpose of regulating the conduct of the parties to a lis, the requirement of leave to be granted has been incorporated therein. The discretion conferred on the court has got to be exercised judiciously. It will be appropriate to notice that the pleadings have been completed in the case long prior to the respondents herein moving the IA No. 1276 of 2008. In fact, the entire evidence of the plaintiff was completed and DW1 has also been examined. Even going by the statement of facts averred in the affidavit filed in support of the said IA, it becomes clear that on the basis of alleged tresspass said to have been committed on 19.10.2008, the present application for a counter claim is made. It will be relevant to notice that Rule 6-A of Order VIII CPC which has been inserted with effect from 1.2.1977 makes the position clear that a defendant in a suit, in addition to his right of pleading a set off under Rule 6, can set up by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accuring to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence. But, however, this Rule 6-A does not, as a principle, filing of a counter claim by the defendant after he had filed his written statement. This is exactly what has been set out by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Kumar's case (supra 3). But, however, what is relevant to be noticed is, the point of time at which such a counter claim can be permitted to be brought on record. The court has to use its discretion properly while entertaining the counter claim. When the suit itself has reached a stage of being decided, like in the instant case, entertaining of the counter claim would become an exercise to defeat the very objective of rendering a quick decision on the lis. That should be avoided. That is what has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in the following words in Rohit Singh's case (supra 1) in paragra 15 of its judgment. “15. ...... A counter-claim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a counter-claim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed. Therefore, the entertaining of the so called counter-claim of defendants 3 to 17 by the trial court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. On that short ground the counter-claim so called, filed by defendants 3 to 17 has to be held to be not maintainable.” The Supreme Court in Bollepanda P.Poonacha's case (supra 2) had occasion to dealienate the contours of Order VIII, Rule 6A of the CPC in the following terms: “( 10 ) THE provision of Order VIII Rule 6a must be considered having regard to the aforementioned provisions. A right to file counter claim is an additional right. It may be filed in respect of any right or claim, the cause of action therefor, however, must accrue either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has raised his defence. Respondent in his application for amendment of written statement categorically raised the plea that the appellants had tresspassed on the lands, in question, in the summer of 1998. Cause of action for filing the counter claim inter alia was said to have arisen at that time. It was so explicitly stated in the said application. The said application, in our opinion, was, thus, clearly not maintainable. The decision o f Sri Ryaz Ahmed (supra) is based on the decision of this court in Baldev Singh and Others Vs. Manohar Singh and Another [ (2006) 6 scc 498]. Further, the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from those of the Sri Ryaz Ahmed (supra). In that case, the proposed amendment by the defendant was allowed to be filed as he wanted to make a counter-claim by way of a decree for grant of mandatory injunction to remove the built up area on the disputed portion of land. It was therein held that instead of driving the defendant to file a separate suit therefor, it was more appropriate to allow the counter-claim keeping in mind the prayer of a negative declaration in the plaint. However, in the instant case, the counter-claim was purported to have been filed for passing of a decree for recovery of possession of the disputed land after the suit had been filed. Baldev Singh (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that the court while allowing an application for amendment will permit the defendant to raise a counter claim although the same would run counter to the statutory interdicts contained in Order 8 Rule 6a. Some of the decisions of this Court in no uncertain terms held it to be impermissible. See Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (1987) 3 SCC 265], Shanti Rani Das Dewanjee (Smt.) Vs. Dinesh Chandra Day (Dead) by lrs. [ (1997) 8 SCC 174].” In fact, this judgment had occasion to consider the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the principles that have been settled for consideration are these: (1) Rule 6-A of Order VIII does not prevent a counter claim to be raised by a defendant on a cause of action which has arisen either prior to or after filing of the suit. (2) A right to file counter claim is an additional right. (3) The Court has got wide discretion while entertaining the application seeking leave for filing additional written statement raising counter claim or set off under Rule 9 Order VIII CPC. (4) At the same time, the discretion of the court has got to be exercised very judiciously for ensuring that the ends of justice are properly served and met. Applying the above principles to the present case, it clearly emerges that two issues which have been settled for consideration have comprehensively dealt with the rights of both parties viz., plaintiff as well as the defendant. Issue No.2 deals with the right of ownership of the defendant with regard to the suit schedule land itself. The suit has reached a stage of conclusion inasmuch as the plaintiff's side evidence is closed and DW1 was examined in March 2008 and at this stage after a long gap the present application has been moved in October 2008. By passing a lacunic order while granting leave the court had dealt with the entire issue in a mechanical fashion. Assigning reasons will not only indicate the lines on which the court had applied its mind to the issue that was brought before it, but it would also add clarity to the proceedings. It would help in bringing out an appropriate determination with reference to the settled principles of law, instead of allowing the parties to grope in speculation of the factors that weighed with thecourt. The failure to assign reasons in the instant case for allowing the IA, in my opinion, is too fatal to be condoned though the leave sought for under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC can, in appropriate cases, also be granted orally. For the aforesaid reasons I find merit in the contentions canvassed by the petitioners and the IA No. 1276 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. CRP stands allowed. No costs. The court below is directed to expeditiously deal with the suit and decide the same within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt of this order as the suit was instituted in the year 2002. -------------- knk 21.08.2009 [1] AIR 2007 SC 10 [2] AIR 2008 SC 2003 [3] AIR 1987 SC 1395