- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3636 WP No. 31349 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31349 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M.T RAVI KUMAR SO LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DADDABBIGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577235. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 2. M T MALLIKARJUNA S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. M C THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. R1 TO R3 ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND RESIDENTS OF DODDABBIGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-277235. 4. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O LATE M C SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3636 WP No. 31349 of 2024 5. M S PRABHU S/O LATE M C SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R4 & R5 ARE R/AT DODDABBIGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-277235. 6. M S JYOTHI W/O LATE DODDA HALASWAMY D/O M C SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAMAPURA VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-277235. 7. MS KALPANA W/O LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT TOLAHUNASE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DISTRICT-277235. 8. M S RAJU S/O LATE M C SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS DODDBIGERE VILALGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-277235. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 SERVED AND UNPRESENTED: NOTICE TO R4 TO R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O 27.11.2024 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2024, PASSED ON IA NO. 6 IN OS NO. 45/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, PRODUCED AT ANN-A BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 6 AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3636 WP No. 31349 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the defendant No.6 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri in O.S.No.45/2020, whereby IA No.VI filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file the counter claim is dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. On service of summons, defendants filed the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and the matter was set down for evidence. At that stage, defendant No.6 filed an application under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC to set up the counter-claim. The trial court rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.6 is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3636 WP No. 31349 of 2024 3. It is not in dispute that, along with the written statement, the defendant No.6 has not set up a counter claim and that he has filed the same after issue has been framed. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHANTESH GUREDDI vs. SMT.THAYAMMA reported in ILR 1999 KAR 898 has held that, if the counter claim is not set up along with the written statement, it has to be set up before the issues are framed. 4. In the case on hand, defendant No.6 has not set up the counter claim along with the written statement and it has been filed after the issue has been framed. Therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63