IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA;'_:G'O«\1Vv:!:§,§{ _
W.P.NO.35596/2010 &w.P.No.3579.7s,Iéc.1o§f . V
C/W W.P.NO.35595/2010 & W.P'.i\f-F).3S796[2vf)_JQ;--[k D'
W.P.NO.35696/2010 & W.P=,NO»..3~548W8m;5>j;M.Qm;1&Qn;V.'V-._
W.P.NO.35697/2010 & W.P.'NO;-35883'/'?,,C:-1,VCJ,. "
W.P.NO.3S698/2010 8:\N.P.NOfi428»:"2{,}1.QL
W.P.NO.35849"=3'5850/2010,--._
W.P.NO.35594/2010 & W;.P;i\l_O.37G--3_3[2O1O4
W.P.NO.35695/2010 .& W.P..N'O-36550/20:0'-(GM--CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri .»AishoDI< Kumar-n... .....
M/s. M.Shravan4.§<u_mar'éi'rid":1 _ _
R.Ashok Kumar ~
A propzvrietorsiiip ca'.%ryingzQn business in a
Shop No.7'=8'7,V Btiri-i.di'nq's,'
Chickpet, " ' "
Bangaiore"~.__S6.0 053;, " .
Represented" by its7'PrO-p rietor
PETITIONER
(in W.P.N0.35596 865797/2010)
'AM/Os'.--.riV1A/e;As*1'::.ay,rryiri=g or:-wi§us'inéss'~in_._.E1J
Shop No.78,1-,'--§Vio§"'jan B:i_i'3di'i1gs,-.,<'
Chickpet, " _
Bangaioreg ,
Represented by its'-~!?rio,p r'i--et'b-rt '
Sri M.Reddappa, .agejc$. 6'6.y'e.a'rs.
" V j " ...PETITIONER
'(in W.P.N0.35695 81 36550/2010)
A:(By_yWSri.'itiday-..Hoi|a, Senior Counsel for petitioners in all
WP . y
Am
x,M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited,
P,u_biic"Lirnited Company,
"«_In_c:orporated under the provisions of
_ 'Fhe'Company's Act, having its
" Registered office at No.4,
Batavia Chambers,
Kumara Krupa Road East,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Authorised
Representative, Sri M.K.E\3arang.
... RESPQN 0' "~ V
(By Sri G.S.Kannur, Adv.)
(Common i__n{all4A"W,'g'P,.sv) .
W.P.No.35596 &35797/2010, is;;r;l.ed7ti,i~ide'r 'A?'t"i.c.I'e?s:
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India_, prayi'.ng"to quash
the order dated 10.6.2010 passed innO.3.No._.13?49.9/2006 2 '
by the XXVI Additional Cityu"'lCivil ':lrid'ge,= Bangalore
(Arinexure -- G) in so far as it____re}ected the-«I,.,A.|\lr?).IV & V
filed under Order VI Rul'e..._17 of th'e..CP(;.-.,a '0 "
W.P.No.355_95 &3.57'9s/2010 'isv.fi'l"eid-"'under Articles
226 and 227 of.the._Col;flstitu'tion of"_-Ind'ia',« praying to quash
the order dated 10.6_2'01'O_ "passed"En"'O".S.No.17447/2006
by the X);(VI"~..Ad~d'1i_tion.al__ "C,it'y_ '[Civ_il Judge, Bangalore
(Annexure -._G')'._ ii}, so fa,r"a_s._it"rejé§Cted the I.A.No.IV & V
filed un.der~ Order VII; rRu'l'e, 1.7 of"the"VCPC.
,--'J\.l'.P.N4'o'.3:569t3 assess/2o1o is filed under Articles
226~a,ndll227 of't'3%3...CQ:1stitution of India, praying to quash
f"'ithetrdrder dated 10.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.17S01/2006
by"-»the__ 'XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore
¥(An_enexure, 4 G), in so far as it rejected the I.A.No.IV & V
fil-ed'-u'nder"_'Qrd:=er VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
iiil..§~.i\lo.35697 865883/2010 is filed under Articles
K 'ifi.226--~and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash
"-,"t_he._Qi'der dated 10.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.17-450/2006
-- by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore
(Annexure -- G) in so far as It rejected the I.A.No.III & IV
I "filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
5
W.P.No.35698 866428/2010 is filed under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash
the order dated 10.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.17613/2006
by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore
(Annexure - G) in so far as it rejected the I.A.No.II;I 8; IV
filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
W.P.No.35849~35850/2010 is filed un"d._ervjfArticles.l
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, p'ra'yi'injg~ ,to=.q'u.ash
the order dated 10.6.2010 passed in"O S.--.l\l0;.'1.758_2/2006".
by the XXVI Additional City Civil_"'r.1--*ddge,"~ 't3arig:"a_l,d*r<:e;
(Annexure - G) in so far as it rejectedgthe I.Ar.N'o..I'.II
filed under order VI Rule 17 .f5f't_he c'P<:_.'
w.P.l\ie..355'94--.'_ &3.7o3._3/2_o1f;G is filed under Articles
226 and 227 or'-""t_he 'Consti.t--.Jtio.n= of}Ii'idia, praying to quash
the ordVeif_da'ted '1p.,6.201_o pa..s,sed3' in O.S.No.17615/2006
by the XX'\lIif._Ad¥'jitior1a.l' City Civil Judge, Bangalore
(Annex*ure._ - G) !.Fi~_,SOl fa-r__as. it -rejected the I.A.No.IV & VI
filed under Order VI:i'R_uie__ of the CPC.
.»QVV.P.No.3'5'695_____&36550/2010 is filed under Articles
V'"~226'~andT":22"7..yof the Constitution of India, praying to quash
thge-»oVrd..er«.datéd_ 10.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.17470/2006
'by.,e.thee_'=xXVIr-. Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore
(An'nexu're."_*5--..Gjin so far as it rejected the I.A.No.IV & VI
filed__und.er Qrder VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in
A ":.'B.*V group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed by the
defendants questioning the orders passed by the triai-c_ou_rt
rejecting the applications fiied by
amendment to the written statements» purporti’n.g_Vvto’=setV up ”
counter–ciaims.
2. The plaintiff (respdn’dent)hV’ on 0′
15.12.2006 to eject the d_efen.da’:rts'{ti*ieflpetitioners herein)
and put it in possession to pay the
arrears of rent, a~n:d*-darijagjesbfo-reuse.andoccupation of the
suit pre’mi’ses…:i*or towrémain in occupation after
the tervrninationgof»Vt’hve_:”ten~ancy and for consequential
reiiefs_._ Thé’~icase_iof Athe”~’piaintiff in brief is that, the suit
was purc’i’i’ased by it in a an public auction
Income Tax Department on 08.03.2004
andlthe satletdeed was executed on 09.02.2005, which has
0′-,.,_”»._been “rec_”iistered in the Office of the Sub~Registrar,
‘jGand’iA_iinagar, Bangalore and thereafter the katha of
coémposite property was changed to its name and that, it
N
/’
,.
has paid the tax. The property-Mohan Building, consists of
about 43 shops, which are independent and sevpatate.lVy
occupied by different tenants and having
numbers and the defendants being the in
occupation of the shops. The peti”tior:’er*s’i’ al1oné;’
tenants of the building h’a:d”‘-~.,fi|ed'”~\/ti.P.No.,,’i?;fi’Ss0./2004
challenging the public;__auctioAn..:an,d ‘the wr’it.,,pet,ii§ion was
dismissed on o2.o9.2oo*sf.w5ritfAppee,i;,.,i$ie,;3494/2005 filed
was dismissed_as__withd’ra-xiliijp. are not
prompt in is accumulated
arrears, ____ Vilthlegtenancy of each of the
defendants the demand made therein
having notsheenV’cornpl»ie’d_;with, stating that, the cause of
_ action to fi|eV”theV suit has arisen on 09.02.2005 and
.su’b.s;equAeAn%t–ixf*~when the legal notices terminating the
ten”a.ncy”»-J’avs._ issued and upon the failure and negligence on
the’.4″‘par”–t:4.Gl*: the defendants to vacate the respective
in their occupation, the suits seeking the reliefs
_ noti”ced supra was filed.
X//”
3. The petitioners (defendants) have filed written
statements on 10.04.2007 inter alia contending that, the
suit/s are not maintainable and that they are not iia.’|§flI’e.to
be dispossessed from the plaint schedule premise-s–..’,j;.’__’__:”I’
4. Concededly, issues were _.~H.f.r:a~mVed:: .
10.12.2007. Applications filed to__ raise.fjvad.di:t.io’na’I’~.’i’ssV0esf
were allowed and additional..__ issues”‘were»'”fra:n1ed_:’; on
02.03.2009. For the plaintiff,vuf’faffidaVvit ftevigdencelgof PW–1
was filed, PW–1 depogseid and: Ex.P–10 were
marked on 22.o4,.12009.A…_._o:’_«.0 0 0 V V
-. defendants filed applications
under Order 6 VvRti’le.”‘t.’7»* for amendment of the written
_ stat.e.t3a’eri.ts. T’h’e_.stiits:were adjourned for filing statement
of’«o0}ec’tiAo%n.s:§”~«,Objections having been filed, upon hearing
fttheh-.Viea”rne’d._ cotviiinsel for the parties, the applications
–‘ seei{ing”‘-vagmefindment of written statements raising counter-
was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants
— h’ai)’e’Afi|ed these writ petitions.
/,/”
6. Indisputably, when the petitioners “filed
applications in the suits to amend the written ste~tefrti_e~.n_t
i.e., to incorporate the counter-claims, for a dec:reeA:’a–.gai.ns7t.,’ ~
the plaintiff, issues and additional _issu_es h_acf’b’een’f’ra’_med,_V it”
and trial had commenced. The a.ppli_”cat’ions.
petitioners were dismissed bvf_Vti~i.e triai~c:ou.rt the = L’
ground that, the suits for eje,ctrne.nt’V..c_ann’o’tT.he converted
as suits of the defendants jfor§.,’s’p’e’csi,fi.cV’performance, by
observing that,_:’-the ,d’efen’da.r;t_gi_”cant.:i:’ni’tiate separate
proceedings.-to Memorandum of
Understan,diAng.f” :’V’1.:;,,it_” observed that, the
amendment ‘necessary to determine the
dispute between’_.’the*.i°parties and if the proposed
_ amet¥i:drn”ent isV’a”l!_o:wed’,: it will change the nature of the suit
_injuAstice:’w.ou|d occasion to the opposite party.
Uday Holia, learned senior counsel
appeasjing for the petitioners contended that, counter–c|aim
‘ jwis ‘n*.aintainab|e even in a suit for ejectment even if the
‘ of action put forward by the defendant in the suit did
K/J’
E0
not arise out of cause of action put in suit by the p§a_i_ntiff
and that, under such circumstances, the trial courtffiv-asr.,n’ot
justified in passing the impugned order. It ”
that, the scope of counter~claim in”te–rms–‘_:of it
6–A of the Code has not been
pleadings, the trial court :5 .t1a’*.xelV’-,a|”i’ovWedthe ° V
counter-claim to avoidnjultipl-iciltf.of”-procleledingsi On the
scope and content of CPC, learned
senior counsei of the Apex
Court afid 9′? u’7′.?_””uté’:”‘vl:”«’€°:.’5I””‘tVV|’1at, the conclusion
of the xirarrarited. It was submitted
that, of scope for entertaining
counter-clladinn underlt_h’e«.:_’amendment to the code brought
about. b\,f’Act of…1976, the counter~claims made by the
‘p:et’it.ioners’;’faj|”ii within the ambit and scope of Order 8 Rule
6?A.”ol’ ftwas contended that, there is a misdirection
‘._adop’ted'”A.:_tryl’ the trial court, resulting in the impugned
V’ iffolrder.s, xivhich are irrational and illegal, being passed.
i,
8. Sri G.S.Kannur, learned advocate appearing for
the respondent contended that, the suits being-lj’o~nfe_:io4r
ejectment, the counter–c|aims having not been”inade’:.a’I’cI3i’g*iA ”
with the written statements and..h»av_i,ng .’14’riile”de’i’;,attet_;th’te,
framing the issues and commenceziinentollf was
not allowed by the trial court..D”Learned.__couAnseI’*:._gu”bniitted ” i
that, the cause of action to th–e~ the’a.!le.g’ed cause
of action for the co’ulnter’~_cEfaVi:ins”efbeing distinct and
separate, the ap:pii.catio”ns”being’not rna«l,ntainab|e, the trial
cou rt is justified_ i’n..rJ–is’m.i_s.si”r~..g t-hellsancie.
it’_’I’Vl.i:__a\{e”§.ylslperusled_ writ petition/s record.
Keepingiin ‘~._:sisew.__thAe’lriy’a.l:”contentions, the short point for
consideration would be; H
‘A Vi/snethserythe counter–clai’ms filed by the defendants
V st/’p’,ie’t.i,tionierS after framing of issues in the suits are
‘ ” ma;nts,l-,»iiab;e2
* 10″.’ The suits were filed by the respondent against
thseltpetitioners on 15.12.2006. After the written
T ‘statements were filed by the defendants, issues and
K
r
additional issues were framed and the suit went to_.__trial.
The applications seeking amendment of the.«j”w,i*iitt’en
statements to incorporate the counter–ciaims .were,ff’i’le’di or-‘.2 *
the date, the affidavit evidence of »F>~\f\.f.1-,1 if
was examined and the documents “wer1ernari<~ed'._" A
11. Rule 6–A to 6-6 ‘iln_,:Owrder A8 of a ” if
specific right on a defendan,t.—to”V-set’up ‘a’–cou,n’ter–claim
against the ciaim of a pulaintiff pursuant to the
amendment to Code’ the Central Act
104 of 1975; *’lf.”,..’;’. ‘ i
12. . ‘Inf’MiA’ii:iE’iiI,,oRA’–~i<oMAR & ANOTHER vs. STATE
OF MADHYA4 i~"R_A'i3e"'si{i EQQTHERS – AIR 1987 sc 1395, the
ques.tion=which' was considered was, whether counter–c|aim
.ca'n._Vi:;e,:'fiMie,d'*~–.after filing of written statement by the
llldefenida'rit'."_'»«.Ti"h;et;uestion was answered in the affirmative.
13-.~ SHANTI RAE DAS DEWAN3EE VS. DINESH
l3"*-*«.__"-»»CHANDR_i5\ DAY – (1997) 8 scc 174, it was held that, a
if ,V."V'cou_n:{:-er–claim can be presented even after filing of written
\i
/'T
statement, provided that the cause of action for filing the
same had arisen before or after institution of the..jst.iit.._a'nVd
such cause of action had continued till the =
the written statement or the exter_1ded_date"of"tli'Ifino'o'f:.th'eV ll
written statement.
14. In SMT.PARVATH}i’i’4.,i:l§i,\ VS.l”~K.lRr.–EOKANATH —
AIR 1991 Kai’ 283, it.w’a.5 heldlltti-at,.l?”the counter-claim, if
not set up in the writtenst.atenient-;«..t’tien has to be set
up before issues:.’are;=._frarried} :bt:”t’~..at.7 any rate before
recording The reasons which
prevai|,edl”in”arriyin.§.:Vat_ttae_’ saidconclusion were –
bf counter-claim at a belated
it i’–stlageVw’i_lldcau«ise great prejudice to the plaintiff in
a suit’ since he will not be able to adduce
V V lvlevidence by anticipating any counter-claim;
V “scheme under the Rules ERMA to 6-0 of Order
‘ it the CPC does not permit by necessary
. ‘vi’rnplicat.ion such course; and
(dc-)_. 1’ It would lead to protracting the trial and defeat
the Very object for which right to file counter-
claim has been given. K
/1”
15. In HANUMANTHASASTRI MAHADEVASASTRI
PURANIK & ANOTHER VS. IVIADHAVA RAD &
1989(1) Kar LJ 405, it was held that, when the i-
the plaint claim and the defence:»iple.adedM’in4″‘t.he’xwr_i:tte’n
statement, substantially covers there:l.ief”Vsoog_ht..’ford
defendant by way of cotJnter?dc:l4’aVi.m and ,t|’ie_utVr«~i,aE”‘:o’f”the: suite’
has not reached a stage reqpui-rliirig ‘r’eopeni’ngV…ofVvithe trial,
there is no reason ufhe_vi»’.a.ppVlication of the
defendant, seeki:rig_ st-‘Ftement
and put
of opinion expressed in
the judges of this court in the
two c’ecpision’s,, noticed sopra, the matter was referred to
. l°’ithe’i’*!5i\i»–i’siohfienchwlllfor resolving the conflict. In the case
-..oV’f.._h-Sulfi,?.i:.:l\iT_pE:’v,?kl’jlICSUREDDI vs. SMT.THAYAMMA – 1998(6)
Kar-.__L.3 V_<iO€:9vu,4T..'tAhe Division Bench has held as follows:
.'.'1V._"ji. In our considered opinion, keeping in View the
staiiutory provisions and legal pronouneernents as
noticed above, the View taken by K.A.Swamy.J.,
appears to be quite appropriate and consistent with
K
d/./
2
legal principles requiring fair trial which ensure
avoidance of undue hardship to the parties to a
proceedings. its conclusion with reasonable speelediand
fair opportunity to the plaintiff to app’ropriai.e’lylVdf-fendV
himself against a counter-Claim.
16. xxxxxx
17. For the above reasons,
can file his Counier~clairn”—-.even Aafiers tilinlg-:.of…\witten 2 L’
statement but it should belljelfore the coinrzlenoement of
the evidence in thehfial .issuesa’re”seitled in
relation to the aiivell granting fair
oDDO1″iunitV to the lfiiairitiff —-toael.d.tioe1.’eN7idenCe in that
regard
“”” [Emphasis supplied)
17.’ ._L’TriaE is de’en§”ed”‘t;o commence when issues are
settE§;d”aind the c;_a’s’e isset down for recording of evidence,
ijhecase of KAILASH vs NANHKU, reported in
‘Q0-r3__5ij and in the case of AJENDRAPRASADJI N
PAN’sEY._;’ ‘ -A AND ANOTHER vs. SWAMI
M”—JKESHAVPl2AKASHDASJI N AND OTHERS, reported in
@2036’) 12 sec 1.
.. N /,
16
18. In the case of VIDYABAI VS. PADMALATHA,
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409, with regard to the date of
commencement of trial, it has been heid as follows:
“1 1. From the order passed by the learned
it is evident that the respondents had not.’:been.,abte V’
fulfil the said precondition. __,fle_ questdidoinfivtherefore,
which arises for consideration is as _to \’9′,J>h.’e’t’.’,’}’1’€’.1″‘i;t’t”43′,_'[I~7.Fl,?J_,’.’
had commenced or not. [111 ourobinion, jdtd: ‘Fhe’=dateV’–..
on which the issues areifr_amed is ‘i:1fie’-._dda.te”‘offifirstd”V
hearing. Provisions of of «-Ciivil firocedure
envisage takirlfl 0fQ”v.aricius,_ st’e1:_)s,vat different stages of
the proceeding. Filing i’~bfan.ddV’a§ffidaVit in lieu of
examinatioi1ain–ch’i’ef’ of thei’r»witnes_sv;’ in our opinion,
v.2ouid ,aijaod:n.t”to'”‘*co:rnn1encefnent of proceeding;
‘ _ V 3 _ [Emphasis supplied)
19.””e«.,1_dn, R”o,HI;Tf.s!1NsH vs. STATE or ESIHAR,
rep»o~§:te,ci” Er; (2oo6)_____.1.2 sec 734, after trial of the suit,
‘a.;5p!..iCa–»t_i4onffo’rimpleading having been fited, a counter-
ciairri was’.V–“jefnftertaéned at the instance of the interveners.
After no’ti.cing the facts, it has been held as follows:
2 counterclaim, no doubt, couid be filed even after the
‘inrritteii statement is filed, but that does not mean that a
counterclaim can be raised after issues are framed and
E»
the evidence is closed. Therefore. the entertaining bf the
so~ea11ed courlterclaim of defendants 3 to 17 by. _4tr..1fal
court. after the framing: of issues for trial,
iilegal and without iurisdiction. On that i
the sowcalled counterclaim. filer.1…bV’ deiiehdaiiéts ‘.3 1′? if
has to be held to be not maint£i__iI1ab}e..I A
Ifixniihasis’,:5iippli¢d.i3
20. In view of the ratiVQ.–ef’few-~deciei’ed..Aby..the Apex
Court in the case of and by the
Division Bench in”th’e (supra),
the appIica::ti’o§’ns__Vsited :tvi’:eVV.V§nVi’tten statement to
set up _r..ounte.f¥ci’Vai;nn_s fiied after the framing
of issues «sf triai are not maintainable
and the”t..riha£_ Vt§oLiVrt_ justified in dismissing the
app.!it;a’tidns, th’duVgh_’__fQ:* different reasons.
‘ the writ petitions fail and shall stand
a\td’§’.osts.
EUQGE