- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43945 WP No. 26636 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 26636 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K PADMAVATHI W/O SRI. A. KRISHNAMURTHY, D/O LATE SRI KEMPANNA @ K. NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.50-51, 1ST A CROSS, LAKSHMAIHA LAYOUT, ABBIGERE, CHICKABANAVARA POST, BENGALURU 560 090. 2. SMT. K. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SRI. K. VISVESHWARAIAH, D/O LATE SRI KEMPANNA @ K. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.3409/A, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 021. 3. SMT. K. BHARATHI W/O SRI SOMASHEKAR, D/O LATE SRI KEMPANNA @ K. NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YELARS R/AT NO.83, 7TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 096. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. THEJESH K R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43945 WP No. 26636 of 2019 AND: 1. SRI K SRIDHAR S/O LATE SRI KEMPANNA @ K. NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.NEW NO.41, MUNICIPAL NO.8, FIRST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, PIPELINE, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003. 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE SRI KEMPANNA @ K. NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.NEW NO.41, MUNICIPAL NO.8, GROUND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, PIPELINE, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003. 3. SMT. CHAITRA W/O LATE SRI K. RENUKESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.483, 1ST CROSS, GANAPATHI LAYOUT, MANJUNATHANAGAR, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU 560 076. 4. BABY HITHESHI S/O LATE SRI K. RENUKESH BABU @ K. RENUKESH AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, SMT. CHAITRA, R/AT NO.483, 1ST CROSS GANAPATHI LAYOUT, MANJUNATHANAGAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43945 WP No. 26636 of 2019 NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SURESH D DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R4 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R3) - - - THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 26.04.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XIX-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY ON IA-V IN O.S.NO.1568 OF 2017 VIDE ANNX-'F' AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (1) Quash the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the court of XIX-Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city on IA-V in O.S.No.1568 of 2017 vide Annexure-'F'. (2) Consequently allow IA-V and permit the petitioners to amend the written statement; and (3) Grant such other relief or reliefs as the situation demands to meet the ends of justice. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43945 WP No. 26636 of 2019 2. Sri.Thejesh K.R., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are defendant Nos.2 to 4. They have filed an application seeking for amendment of the written statement raising counter claim which came to be dismissed on erroneous premise. It is submitted that the three properties referred in the application are the properties of the joint family and the defendant Nos.2 to 4 also have a share in the said properties and the suit being the suit for partition, no prejudice would be caused to the other side if such an amendment is allowed. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Sri.H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. I have given my - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43945 WP No. 26636 of 2019 anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 5. The records indicate that the respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.1568/2017 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, further relief to declare that the gift deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 is bad in law and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.2 to 4, who filed a detailed written statement. After commencement of the trial, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') seeking to amend the written statement by raising a counter claim. The Trial Court considered the same and rejected the application by considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ROHIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1. In my considered view, the Trial Court was 1 (2006) 12 SCC 734 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43945 WP No. 26636 of 2019 fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the written statement after commencement of the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASHOK KUMAR KALRA Vs. WING CDR. SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI AND OTHERS2, at paragraph 21 has 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. 2 (2020) 2 SCC 394 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43945 WP No. 26636 of 2019 (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. (ix) And facts and circumstances of each case. (x) In any case, not after framing of the issues." 6. In view of the clear enunciation of law on the point, I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court calling for interference in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12