- 1 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32636
WP No. 20262 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 20262 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI RANGASWAMY N M
S/O MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/A GROUND FLOOR
NO.46, 2ND MAIN
KATHRIGUPPE VILLAGE
BSK III STAGE
BENGALURU-560085.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ A S, ADV.)
AND:
SRI.D.K. SRINIVASA
S/O KALASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT 1ST FLOOR, NO.46
2ND MAIN, KATHRIGUPPE VILLAGE
BSK III STAGE
BENGALURU-560085.
…RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
S.C.1765/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE FO THE IX ASCJ SMALL
CAUSES AND ADDL.MACT BENGALURU (SCCH-7) AND QUASH THE
ORDERS DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED BY THE IX ASCJ SMALL CAUSES
AND ADDL.MACT BENGALURU (SCCH-7) IN SC.NO.1765/201 ON
I.A.NO.XXV UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC,
UNDER ANNEXURE-A.
Digitally signed by
A K CHANDRIKA
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32636
WP No. 20262 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioner, defendant in S.C.No.1765/2018 on
the file of the IX ASCJ. Small Causes and Additional MACT,
Bengaluru (SCCH-7) (for short, ‘Trial Court’) is before this
Court aggrieved by order dated 02.01.2023 dismissing
I.A.No.25 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend
the written statement.
2.
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Devaraj.A.S., for
petitioner/defendant. Perused the writ petition papers.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that suit of the respondent/plaintiff is one for decree,
directing the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant
physical possession of the suit schedule property and for
arrears of rent. The suit is at the stage of further evidence
of defendant. At that stage, petitioner/defendant filed
I.A.No.25 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the
written statement to include counter claim. The Trial Court
- 3 -
under
impugned order rejected I.A.No.25 filed for
amendment of written statement.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant
would contend that the Trial Court is not justified in
rejecting application for amendment of written statement,
without examine as to such amendment would be
necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties.
Learned counsel would further submit that wife of the
respondent/plaintiff had entered into rent agreement with
defendant
on
receiving
Rs.5,50,000/-
from
the
petitioner/defendant.
The
amendment
to
written
statement to include counter claim was to direct the
respondent/plaintiff to refund a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-
received
by
the
wife
of
respondent/plaintiff
under
agreement dated 15.07.2016.
5.
The Trial Court under impugned order observed
that in a suit for eviction, it is for the plaintiff to establish
landlord tenant relationship and also it is for the Court to
- 4 -
examine as to whether tenancy is validly terminated,
rejected application of the petitioner/defendant.
6.
Admittedly, suit is at the stage of evidence of
DW1. No amendment to include counter claim after
framing of issues is permissible. Since the amendment
sought to written statement is to include counter claim,
such counter claim cannot be sought once the issues are
framed, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of ASHOK KUMAR KALRA v/s WING
CDR.SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI AND OTHERS ((2020) 2
SCC 394). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said
decision has held that defendant cannot be permitted to
file counterclaim after the issues are framed and after the
suit is 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. Relevant paragraphs 18 and
21 of the above decision reads as follows:
- 5 -
“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
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
hypertechnical
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