SRI KARTHIK v. Similarity of cause of action between the main suit and the counterclaim

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. S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R, ADV.) AND:

SRI H.T. JAYARAMU S/O LATE BEEDIMANE THIMMAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT HALAGONAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.

SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAHONNAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

SMT. RAMYA D/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41016 WP No. 2596 of 2024 HC-KAR

SRI DHARSHAN S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

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. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41016 WP No. 2596 of 2024 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 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41016 WP No. 2596 of 2024 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. ii. Period of delay. Prescribed limitation period for the cause of action pleaded. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41016 WP No. 2596 of 2024 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.

In the case on hand, written statement was filed on