- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8659 WP No. 2657 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2657 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT R SHANTHABAI W/O N RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.855, 1ST FLOOR 58TH MAIN ROAD, 61ST CROSS KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT 1ST STAGE BENGALURU - 560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D GANGADHARA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI S MANJUNATH S/O B SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.65, SIDDANNAGALLI CUBBONPET,BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.AMARESH A ANGADI., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-N PASSED IN OS NO. 813/2020 ON IA NO. 1/2022, DATED: 10/01/2024 PASSED IN VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8659 WP No. 2657 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.813/2020 on IA No.1/2022 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, rejecting the application. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction. On service of summons, defendant appeared and filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues have been framed. When the matter was posted for evidence, the petitioner/defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement and to include the counter claim therein under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Since the application filed by the petitioner is belated, that too, after framing of the issues, the trial court, after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8659 WP No. 2657 of 2024 the case of ASHOK KUMAR KALRA vs. WING CDR. SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394 dismissed the application on the ground that once the issue is framed, the defendant cannot be permitted to file a counter-claim. 3. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. 4. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he requires to produce some documents to establish his case. If that would be the case, he has to file necessary application for production of documents, in accordance with law, if law permits. In view of disposal of the main petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45