##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12389

WP No. 31139 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 31139 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI K.V.SHARATH CHANDRA

S/O SRI K R V SETTY, AGE; 58 YEARS,

OCC; ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL

KARNATAKA STATE POLICE

ADD;- NO 8, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 8^TH CROSS

PRASHANT NAGARA, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR

BANGLAORE-79

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S. DECO EQUIPMENT PVT LTD

REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ALF 1956

OFFICE AT C.38, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

METAGALLI, MYSORE-570001

REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

Digitally signed

MR. DERIE FERNANDES

by

…RESPONDENT

SHARADAVANI

B

(BY SMT.SANDHYA.D., ADVOCATE FOR

Location: HIGH

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA KATTIMANI M., ADVOCATE)

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE

NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DATED 18-9-2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 6^TH ADDL SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE IN O.S.NO.676/2023 (I A

NO PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12389

WP No. 31139 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petitioner by the plaintiff in O.S.676/2023 on the file

of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore is

directed against the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed

on I.A.No.IV, whereby the said application filed by the

respondent/defendant under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking to

put forth/introduce a counter claim by amending the written

statement was allowed by the trial Court.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that

the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the

respondent/defendant for ejectment/eviction and for other

reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The

respondent/defendant filed its written statement and contested

the suit and sought for its dismissal by putting forth various

defences and contentions. Subsequent to framing of issues by

the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and the

matter was set down for cross-examination of PW.1., at which

stage, the respondent filed the instant application I.A.No.IV

dated 12.03.2025 seeking permission to amend the written

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12389

WP No. 31139 of 2025

HC-KAR

statement and put forth a counter claim against the plaintiff in

the suit. The said application having been opposed by the

petitioner/plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the

impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which,

the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present

petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the petition and referring to the material on record,

learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the

impugned order in order to point out that the trial Court has

failed to consider and appreciate that the respondent/plaintiff

had filed the instant application purporting to put forth a

counter claim, after commencement of evidence of the

petitioner/plaintiff and at the stage of cross-examination of

PW.1, which is impermissible in law and contrary to the

principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok

Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri and

others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394, wherein the Apex

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12389

WP No. 31139 of 2025

HC-KAR

Court has categorically held that the outer limit to file a counter

claim by the defendant would come to an end and expire upon

commencement of evidence and a counter claim cannot be put

forth by the defendant after commencement of evidence by the

plaintiff. It is submitted that the trial Court has failed to

consider and appreciate the well settled legal position in