- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10995 WP No. 100152 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 100152 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PADMAVATHI ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI GOVIND S/O. FAKERIAPPA BAJERI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.244/31, THASILDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI, ADV. FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SURYA AGRO INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. RAJKUMAR MISHRA S/O. KAMAL SANKAR MISHRA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SURYA AGRO INDUSTRIES, HEAD OFFICE, B. T. COMPOUND, R. K. ROAD, DAVANAGERI-577001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANAND ASTEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.II DATED 23.11.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.478/2017 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10995 WP No. 100152 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: “1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the Order on I.A. No.II dated 23.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.478/2017 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi vide Annexure-E. 2) Issue any writ or orders or directions to meet the ends of justice.” 2. Sri. Yash Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent has raised counter claim by filing an application for amendment of the written statement which came to be allowed by the trial Court contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra V/s Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri and Others1. It is submitted that the respondent filed a written statement in the year 2017 and by way of proposed amendment to the said written statement in the year 2019 seeking to delete paragraph No.19 of the written statement by substituting that the accused-Govind Fakirappa 1 2020 (2) SCC 394 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10995 WP No. 100152 of 2022 Bajeri, Proprietor of the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings and also raised counter claim for a sum of Rs.1,74,210/- with interest at the rate of 24%. The proposed amendment by way of counter claim is filed after framing of the issues which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri. Anand Astekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the case and the counter claim is based on the material available on record. It is submitted that the trial Court appreciated all the aspects and allowed the amendment to the written statement which does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that if the counter claim is rejected solely on the ground that the same is filed after framing of the issues then it is always open for the defendant to file a fresh suit claiming recovery of the amount sought to be claimed in the counter claim. Hence, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the petition is required to be rejected. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10995 WP No. 100152 of 2022 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. The material available on record indicates that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.478/2017 for recovery of money against the respondent. In the said suit, the respondent filed detailed written statement on 13.12.2017. Later, he filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the written statement by deleting paragraph No.13 of the written statement by incorporating certain facts which have taken place after filing of the written statement. The proposed amendment is also with regard to filing of counter claim for a sum of Rs.1,74,210/- along with interest at the rate of 24%. The application for amendment of written statement is filed on 10.04.2019 and the issues in the aforesaid suit were framed on 13.11.2018. Admittedly, filing of the counter claim by the defendant is after framing of the issues which is impermissible as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10995 WP No. 100152 of 2022 Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra referred supra at paragraph No.21 which is held as under: 21. We sum up our findings, that Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC does not put an embargo on filing the counterclaim after filing the written statement, rather the restriction is only with respect to the accrual of the cause of action. Having said so, this does not give absolute right to the defendant to file the counterclaim with substantive delay, even if the limitation period prescribed has not elapsed. The court has to take into consideration the outer limit for filing the counterclaim, which is pegged till the issues are framed. The court in such cases have the discretion to entertain filing of the counterclaim, after taking into consideration and evaluating inclusive factors provided below which are only illustrative, though not exhaustive: (i) Period of delay. (ii) Prescribed limitation period for the cause of action pleaded. (iii) Reason for the delay. (iv) Defendant's assertion of his right. (v) Similarity of cause of action between the main suit and the counterclaim. (vi) Cost of fresh litigation. (vii) Injustice and abuse of process. (viii) Prejudice to the opposite party. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10995 WP No. 100152 of 2022 (ix) And facts and circumstances of each case. (x) In any case, not after framing of the issues. 6. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the filing of the counter claim after the issues are framed. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that not allowing to raise the counter claim would lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and he is required to file a fresh suit cannot be a ground to allow the raising of the counter claim after the issues are framed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is always open for the respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 7. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10995 WP No. 100152 of 2022 ii. The impugned order dated 23.11.2017 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.478/2017 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.II filed by defendant under Order VI Rule 17 is rejected. iii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14