- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17992 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VIDYAMANJUNATH W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO. 545/85, 42ND CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD, 8TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA DEVI W/O LATE K.G. HARISH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SRI. H. BHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE K.G. HARISH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 3. SRI. DARSHAN KUMAR S/O LATE K.G. HARISH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.128, 4TH CROSS 19TH MAIN, 1ST N BLOCK Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. SRI. K.R. GOVINDARAJULU S/O LATEE K.S. RAGAIAH SETTY SINCE DEAD (LRS ALREADY ON RECORD) 4. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE K.G. GNANA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO. 128, 4TH CROSS 19TH MAIN, 1ST N BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 5. SMT. LEENA D/O LATE K.G. GNANA PRAKASH W/O SRIPADA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT 'PADMAVATHI NILAYA', NO. 80/1, 18TH MAIN II BLOCK, B.S.K 1ST STAGE BENGALURU - 50. 6. SMT. SUSHMA D/O LATE K.G. GNANA PRAKASH W/O SAMBAIAH AGED 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 128, 4TH CROSS 19TH MAIN, 1ST N BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 10. 7. SMT. SWETHA D/O LATE K.G. GNANA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. 128, 4TH CROSS 19TH MAIN, 1ST N BLOCK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 10. SMT. K.G. SUBASH CHANDRA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 8(A). SMT. GEETHA W/O LATE K.G. SUBASH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 8(B). KUM. BHAVYA D/O LATE K.G. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 8(C). KUM. RESHMA D/O LATE K.G. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 8(D). SRI. BALAJI S/O LATE K.G. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 7 AND 7/1, FIRST FLOOR II CROSS, SIDDAPURA LALBHAG WEST GATE, JAYANGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. 9. SMT. LEELAVLATHI W/O LATE K.G. VENKATESH AGED 66 YEARS R/AT NO. 192, 7TH CROSS OMKAR NAGAR, ARKERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 10. SMT. SHREYA D/O LATE K.G. VENKATERSH AND W/O MAYUR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. 192, 7TH CROSS OMKAR NAGAR, ARKERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076. 11. SRI. VINAY S/O LATE K.G. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. 145 SRI RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA SRIRAMA ROAD, THYGARAJA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 028. 12. SRI. K.G. BADRINATH S/O K.R. GOVINDARAJULU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO. 145 SRI RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA SRIRAMA ROAD, THYGARAJA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 28. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2021, NOTIC TO R3 TO R12 STANDS WAIVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 01.02.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.5037/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH- 44) AT ANNX-F AND THEREBY REJECT THE I.A.NO.3 TO MEET THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 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 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the Order dated 01.02.2021 passed on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5037/2009 by the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'the Trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.Ramesh Ananthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil S. Rao for Sri.T.Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants have filed the written statement. The Trial Court framed the issues on 06.12.2014. Defendant No.11 filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to permit defendant No.11 to file counter claim in the said suit. The said application was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 rejected by the Trial Court under the impugned order. It is to be noticed that the pleadings in the said suit are filed. The Trial Court framed the issues on 06.12.2014. Thereafter, the counter claim is sought to be filed by defendant No.11. In order to support the application in I.A.No.III, defendant No.11 has contended that the plaintiff has amended the plaint by adding additional prayer seeking for declaration that the gift deed dated 19.02.2007 executed by Sri.K.R.Govindrajulu in favour of Smt.Vidyamanjunath is not binding on her. 4. It is required to be noticed that at this stage the plaintiff at prayer No.5 has sought declaration that the gift deed dated 19.02.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.11 is null and void and non est in the eye of law and the said prayer is sought by way of subsequent amendment to the plaint. The plaint was amended and prayer No.6A was inserted seeking declaration that the gift deed dated 19.02.2007 is not binding. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 5. Be that as it may. The averments made in the application that the plaintiff has sought amendment to the plaint and sought declaration that the gift deed dated 19.02.2007 is null and void is factually incorrect. The said prayer was available in the plaint prior to the amendment of plaint. Be that as it may, it is required to be noticed that defendant No.11 intend to raise a counter claim in the suit after framing of the issues which is impermissible, in view of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing CDR. Surendra Agniyothri and others1. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision are extracted herein below; "18. As discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs, the whole purpose of the procedural law is to ensure that the legal process is made more effective in the process of delivering substantial justice. Particularly, the purpose of introducing Rule 6-A in Order 8 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by driving the 1 (2020)2 SCC 394 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 parties to file separate suit and see that the dispute between the parties is decided finally. If the provision is interpreted in such a way, to allow delayed filing of the counterclaim, the provision itself becomes redundant and the purpose for which the amendment is made will be defeated and ultimately it leads to flagrant miscarriage of justice. At the same time, there cannot be a rigid and hyper- technical approach that the provision stipulates that the counterclaim has to be filed along with the written statement and beyond that, the court has no power. The courts, taking into consideration the reasons stated in support of the counterclaim, should adopt a balanced approach keeping in mind the object behind the amendment and to subserve the ends of justice. There cannot be any hard and fast rule to say that in a particular time the counterclaim has to be filed, by curtailing the discretion conferred on the courts. The trial court has to exercise the discretion judiciously and come to a definite conclusion that by allowing the counterclaim, no prejudice is caused to the opposite party, process is not unduly delayed and the same is in the best interest of justice and as per the objects sought to be achieved through the amendment. But however, we are of the considered opinion that the defendant cannot be permitted to file counterclaim after the issues are framed and after the suit has proceeded substantially. It would defeat the cause of justice and be detrimental to the principle of speedy justice as enshrined in the objects and reasons for the particular amendment to CPC. 19. In this regard having clarified the law, we may note that Mahendra Kumar case needs to be understood and restricted to the facts of that case. We may note that even if a counterclaim is filed within the limitation period, the trial court has to exercise its discretion to balance between the right to speedy trial and right to file counterclaim, so that the substantive justice is not defeated. The discretion - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 vested with the trial court to ascertain the maintainability of the counterclaim is limited by various considerations based on facts and circumstances of each case. We may point out that there cannot be a straitjacket formula, rather there are numerous factors which needs to be taken into consideration before admitting a counterclaim. 20. We may note that any contrary interpretation would lead to unnecessary curtailment of the right of a defendant to file counterclaim. This Court needs to recognise the practical difficulties faced by the litigants across the country. Attaining the laudable goal of speedy justice itself cannot be the only end, rather effective justice wherein adequate opportunity is provided to all the parties, need to be recognised as well (refer to Salem Advocate Bar Assn. case). 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. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32091 WP No. 17992 of 2021 (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." 5. In the case on hand, admittedly, defendant No.11 is seeking to raise the counter claim after framing of the issues. Hence, it is impermissible. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34