- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6748/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C.T. SUBBAIAH S/O THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. SRI. C.S. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O SANNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT CHOWHALLI VILLAGE YASALUR HOBLI SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 16/17, SAI SABARI EMPIRE GROUND FLOOR, 6TH MAIN NANJAPPA COMPOUND BOB COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI J.P NAGAR 7TH PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH 560 078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAY KUMAR G.S. ADV., FOR SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. H.B. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE B.N. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 R/AT CHANGADIHALLI VILLAGE YASALUR HOBLI SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. 2. SMT. KAVITHA W/O RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT CHANGADIHALLI VILLAGE YASALUR HOBLI SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. 3. SRI. BHARATHESHA S/O SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO. 170, SEELA ROAD SIDDARTHANAGARA RUDRAKRUPA NILAYA MYSORE 570001. 4. SMT. BABITHA W/O KIRAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS C/O SIDDARAMAPPA R/AT NO. 170, SEELA ROAD SIDDARTHANAGARA RUDRAKRUPA NILAYA MYSORE 570001. 5. SMT. H.B. RENUKA D/O LATE H.N. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT CHANGADIHALLI VILLAGE YASALUR HOBLI SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. 6. SMT. UMADEVI W/O M.M. HALAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT CHANGADIHALLI VILLAGE YASALUR HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134. 7. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O LATE H.B. DIWAKARA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT CHANGADIHALLI VILLAGE YASALUR HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. 8. SMT. SHRUTHI D/O DIWAKARA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS C/O SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O DIWAKARA R/AT CHANGADIHALLI VILLAGE YASALUR HOBLI SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573134. 9. SRI. ABHIJITH S/O LATE DIWAKARA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT CHANGADIHALLI VILLAGE YASALUR HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134. 10. SMT. LATHA W/O U.M. GOWRISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO. 913, SHIVANILAYA 14TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS MARUTHI CIRCLE HANUMANTHANAGARA BENGALURU 560 073. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 11. SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O K. UMASHANKARA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS C/O AGRO CENTER MAIN ROAD LAKKAVALLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577228. 12. SMT. BHARATHI W/O S. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 931/3, T.H. 28/3 LAKSHMIPURAM, 1ST MAIN MYSORE 570 001. 13. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. 14. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANASOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. 15. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN 573134. 16. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY TAHASILDAR SAKALESHPURA TALUK SAKALESHPURA 573127. 17. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT CHOWHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 YASALURU HOBLI CHANGADIHALLI POST 573134. 18. SRI. C.T. GOVINDHA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT CHOWHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK YASALURU HOBLI CHANGADIHALLI POST 573134. 19. SRI. C.T. JAYAPPA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT CHOWHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK YASALURU HOBLI CHANGADIHALLI POST 573134. 20. SMT. RATHNA D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT CHOWHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK YASALURU HOBLI CHANGADIHALLI POST 573134. 21. SMT. KAVERI D/O LATE THAMMEGOWA AGE MAJOR R/AT CHOWHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK YASALURU HOBLI CHANGADIHALLI POST 573134. 22. SMT. DEELAKSHI D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT CHOWHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 YASALURU HOBLI CHANGADIHALLI POST 573134. 23. SMT. CHINNAMMA D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT CHOWHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK YASALURU HOBLI CHANGADIHALLI POST 573134. 24. SMT. BHARATHI D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED MAJOR R/AT. CHOWHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK YASALURU HOBLI CHANGADIHALLI POST – 573134. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADV., FOR R1 SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R13 TO R16 NOTICE TO R2 TO R12 & F17 TO R24 D/W V/C/O DTD:08.04.2022) ******* THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SAKALESHPURA IN O.S. NO.38/2017 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DATED 04.03.2022 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F & 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2022 passed on IA.No.12 in OS.No.38/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshapura (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.Vinay Kumar G.S., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners filed a detailed written statement and thereafter, filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement, which came to be rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that the proposed amendment runs into pages and would change the entire defence of the defendants. It is submitted that the petitioners are seeking to incorporate certain paragraphs relating to the revenue proceedings and the execution of the sale deeds and to insert a consequential prayer in the counterclaim seeking a declaration that the sale deeds dated - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 19.11.1946 and 25.09.1950 are not binding on them. It is further submitted that the same petitioners have already filed their written statement and have also raised a counterclaim therein. Therefore, permitting the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side. It is also submitted that the petitioners came to know about the execution of the sale deeds and the revenue proceedings; later, upon securing the documents, they filed the application seeking amendment. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Prateek Chandramouli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.13 to 16 support the order of the trial Court and submit that the proposed amendment to the written statement is nothing but raising additional prayer in the counterclaim, which is impermissible, in view of the fact that the trial in the suit has already commenced and the issues were framed way back in the year 2020. In support of his contentions, - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sri.Basavaraj v. Smt.Basamma and Others1. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.38/2017 seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners herein are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2. They filed their written statement along with a counterclaim on 19.03.2018. Thereafter, the trial Court framed issues on 15.06.2020 and the matter was posted for evidence. The records indicate that the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1. At that stage, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application 1 WP.No.101625/2021 dated 11.09.2025 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), seeking amendment of the written statement by incorporating paragraph Nos.16 to 20 and by inserting an additional prayer seeking a declaration that the sale deeds dated 19.11.1946 and 25.09.1950 are not binding on them. 6. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application indicates that upon verification of documents, defendant No.2 came to know about the certain facts and the sale deeds, which need to be mentioned in the written statement and counterclaim. The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application cannot be termed as a sufficient cause for seeking amendment of the written statement after the commencement of the trial. Be that as it may, the proposed amendment to the written statement is nothing but raising another counterclaim, which is admittedly after the commencement of the trial, which is impermissible as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra v. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri and Others2. The relevant paragraph Nos.8, 18, 20 and 21 are extracted herein below: “8. Having observed on nuances of procedural justice, we need to turn our attention to the Order 8 of the CPC, which deals with written statement, set-off and counterclaim. Rules 1 to 5 of Order 8 CPC deal with the written statement. This Order dealing with the written statement was amended extensively by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as “Act 22 of 2002”), whereby the defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. In case he fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 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 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 2 (2020) 2 SCC 394 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 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. 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 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 be recognised as well (refer to Salem Advocate Bar Assn. case [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 : AIR 2005 SC 3353] ). 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. (ix) And facts and circumstances of each case. (x) In any case, not after framing of the issues.” 7. In view of the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that permitting the defendants to - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010142412022 NC: 2026:KHC:37279 W.P. No.6748/2022 amend the written statement to raise counterclaim with regard to the additional prayer seeking a declaration that the sale deeds dated 19.11.1946 and 25.09.1950 are not binding on them, would be contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The trial Court considering all these aspects, by well-reasoned order has recorded a clear finding that the amendment of written statement after the commencement of the trial, without due diligence is impermissible. I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court calling for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30