Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gangamma vs Sri.H.T. Jayaramu on 15 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41016
WP No. 2596 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 2596 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA
D/O LATE PUTTAHONNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. SRI KARTHIK
S/O GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.49 AND 50, 1ST CROSS
ANJANA NAGARA
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R, ADV.)
Digitally signed AND:
by NANDINI M
S
1. SRI H.T. JAYARAMU
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE BEEDIMANE THIMMAPAIAH
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT HALAGONAHALLI
VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.
2. SRI NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE PUTTAHONNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
3. SMT. RAMYA
D/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41016
WP No. 2596 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. SRI DHARSHAN
S/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
5. SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE PUTTAHONNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 49 AND 50
1ST CROSS, ANJANA NAGARA
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARITLCE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD
06.10.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KUNIGAL, IN O.S.NO.214/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed by defendant nos.1 & 2 with a prayer to set aside
the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil
Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, in O.S.No.214/2017 rejecting the
application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 148
read with 151 of CPC, seeking permission of the Trial Court to
file additional written statement and raise a counter claim.
NC: 2025:KHC:41016
HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
3. O.S.No.214/2017 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil
Court at Kunigal by respondent no.1 herein with a prayer for
granting a decree of specific performance of the agreement for
sale dated 15.12.2010. In the said suit, defendant nos.1 & 2
had filed a detailed written statement on 26.04.2018.
Subsequently, an application under Section 148 read with
Section 151 of CPC was filed on 08.12.2022 with a prayer to
grant an opportunity to defendant nos.1 & 2 to file additional
written statement and also to raise a counter claim in
O.S.No.214/2017. The said application was opposed by the
plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order
impugned has rejected the said application and being aggrieved
by the same, defendant nos.1 & 2 are before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that the Trial Court was
not justified in rejecting the application and in the event the
prayer made in the application is not granted, the petitioners
will be put to irreparable hardship and injury.
NC: 2025:KHC:41016
HC-KAR
5. Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC provides for counter claim by
the defendant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
ASHOK KUMAR KALRA VS WING CDR. SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI
& ORS. - (2020)2 SCC 394, has observed that a counter claim
can be filed even after filing of the written statement, but the
court cannot permit a party to file a counter claim after the
evidence has commenced in the suit. In paragraph no.20 of the
said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:
"20. We sum up our findings, that Order VIII
Rule 6A of the does not put an embargo on filing the
counter-claim 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.
NC: 2025:KHC:41016
HC-KAR
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 the case on hand, written statement was filed on
26.04.2018 and after a lapse of more than four years,
defendant nos.1 & 2 have filed an application seeking
permission of the Trial Court to file additional written statement
and also to raise a counter claim. The material on record would
go to show that undisputedly the trial in the case had
commenced and plaintiff has already led his evidence and it is
at this stage, an application was filed by the defendants
seeking permission of the Trial Court to file additional written
statement and raise counter claim which is not permissible in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
NC: 2025:KHC:41016
HC-KAR
Ashok Kumar Kalra's case supra. Therefore, I do not find any
merit in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
