IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY OF DECEMBER, .20I0; _"»A.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vENOGORALAIYGOwDATJI J
WRIT PETITION NO.33795 /2O'I'o
BETWEEN:
1 N K BABU
S/O.LATE N KRISHNA KuM_AR_=.__
AGED 58 YEARS, . ' ,
R/ATNADUHALLI \i«ILILAG'E ;
NILIGIRI DISTRICT . ' ' '
TAMIL NADU STATE. _ '
2 SMT L..AI<SHVMIY-«:-_V
AGED 77 YEARS,' ' ._ I'
D/.O...LATE_ N 'I<:R.I.SH.NA--._KuMAYR....
E:/AT.NAfJ'L}HALLI vIL~LAGE «
NILIGIRI DIS-TIRICT"II--L,_ ' '
TAMILNADL} SI_fATE--..__
3 SMT H"A~LA'MAL,--.
AGED 63 YEARS,
VD/EQ.L,é}ITE N 'KRI--SHNA KUMAR
_ R/AT.NADuHALLI VILLAGE
" «. . NI.LI'GIR.I DISTRICT
I'A,MIL'NADu STATE
g '-IRER. «EY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI N_a<j.:EELLIE, S/O.N KRISHNA
" AGED 70 YEARS
R/AT D/No.22, RATHNA VILAS,
A M.K.HALLI, GADDIGE ROAD,
' 'MYSORE ~ 570 005.
" PETITIONERS
I -(BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADV.)
1 N K GOPALKRISHNA BHAT
S/ONEKKARE KRISHNA BHAT
AGED 68 YEARS,
R/ATPRASHANTHA DHAMA
MARTIKYATHANALLY VILLAGE AND POST----..
JAYAPURA HOBLI i
MYSORE TALUK AND DIS"IRIC:j.
2 SMT INDIRA BHAT .
W/O.N K GOPALKRISHNA EsHA.T
AGED so YEARS, ' _
R/ATPRASHANTHA DHAMA--.---- _
MARTII<YATHANALLYl.vILLAGE AND, POST
JAYAPURA HOBLI, ~ , . 1 2. L
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT. _
. '- ' RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1 P.cHAf<:I,DR}ASHEk'AR,:.AD\I,--PjOR Riét R2)
TI~S»Y_v'R.IT 'PETITI.oN. IS "FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225
AND 227 OF"T._HEa '4COI*ISTIf;'uTION OF INDIA, PRAYING To
QUASH7--THE":' ORD'E.R-».._DATED__ 22.9.2010 PASSED ON I.A.NO.l8
PASSED IN O.S.NO.39j/200.2 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES A'NDl'S,R.CIvII. ".'}UL:GE, AT MYSORE (PRODUCED AS
ANNEXLJRE -- 'P),AND.CONSE"'QuENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO. 18.
"'vS«.°TR'IS PETITIONCOMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN-'I3j GROuP.,T'HI_S DAY, THE COURT MADE THE POLLOwING:--
QRDER
Tile respondents filed O.S.I\lo.39/2002 against the
Vi'~44l"'I)E:tIiti4_one%s in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.,) Mysore,
I S'"eel<i'ng declaration of title and consequential injunction or
\
"in the alternative, to declare that the Qiaihtiffs have
/,.
perfected title to the plaint schedule property by.__iong
usage, adverse to the interest of the defendants"ari'd.;"fo'r
injunction. The defendants i.e., the petitioners.:é,:'i{é'rej}D'.
filed written statement and contested :_t.h'ei"'siiritlf'<:4l_a_im.,,.if
Issues were framed. Trial of the lsuit-:.'_ha's
that stage, the defendants 'i"il_e'd.._I.A.l\io,.__18.uuynzdeferder 6 " if
Rule 17 CPC to permit thiennf'v,..£'l"«...amend~Wtheti written
statement in the manne'rV:propos'eci.if.':"fheV:a'p_p|ication having
been opposed same to be
devoid of an order of
rejection,...,, .fhe:"defe,n,d.aVnts have filed this writ
petition, : '
_.2_. aSri_:'P;!\i..;~Ma"nrnohan, learned counsel appearing
petitioners'contended that, during the pendency of
list-i:t_",»,:«the,«.ipiaintiffs encroached the property of the
defe4nVdant.s't«olV' an extent of one acre and 1 gunta in
of Kemmannupura Village, Jayapura Hobli,
and upon noticing the same, I.A.No.3.8 was filed
K.""~--t:Hse,eking permission of the court to amend the written
'x
_,_...a9'
..
statement and to putforth the counter–claim. Learned
counsel submits that, the trial court without corisvirderiiavg
the appiication in the correct perspective
order of rejection. Learned counsel ».co.n4tends”t’ha..t,»4 t.he4_’_tria!_, in
court has committed error in passing
in as much as, it has failed ‘toV”‘n.otice”‘tha’t the_re~.._:i’s*~no° bar ” i
for seeking possessionfgby wAa.yflo,f_ ‘cogunterédaimf, as the
subject matter of the and the same.
Learned couns§§:«.5,onter1’d’§~.thatgthe..vpd:.tpo’se of Order 8
Rule 6-A of –thev’vdefenV’dants the right to
seek coun.ter%c:|”airn:_ cause of action which
has accrued ‘during the pendency of the
suit. Learned Vcoxunsel that, the order passed by
the ..t:,%§Ci’aVl icourt,V”i’mpug_ned herein being otherwise, is illegal
and.hence.;nte–rference is called for.
it V. P.Chandrashekar, learned counsel
7-‘«,.__”-appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, by
me through the impugned order would submit that,
k
/,1″.
the same is just and correct and hence, no interference is
called for.
4. I have perused the writ petition_p_a’p’ers.:.A_1f %
5. In the light of the rival corrtentico_n’s’.:”th’eV:’;3.o’i”iii::
for consideration is:
Whether a coun ter–cIaim*-:’s_: permissible V .50» be
filed after filing of 13 dwritten.’statement?
6. Respo’n.dent_sWf’i:Ie*d. the.:su__it v’c|’aih1ing declaratory
and injunctive”reVli:efs–_._ “i’«he__’vizrittenjstatement was filed and
the clai.mr—p:.iitferth’1iiinnthe ‘stilt “w’avsv’contested. Issues have
been framed arajciltriialra»h_a’s_:ta_’ken place. Alleging that the
plaintiffs ‘hay/ e.e tal§er.._V”possession of a portion of suit
No.”18.._..was filed to incorporate the proposed
plVeading.__’an’d,”a relief i.e., counter–c|aim of possession of
alleged enc”rj;c_wa;’:hed portion of one acre and one gunta in
‘.VSy.No.8}’2:. of Kemmannupura Village, Jayapura Hobli,
“..jijMnyso«re, which was allegedly encroached during the month
arm 2010. \Q
2″‘.
/.
7.
Order 8 Rule 6–A of CPC reads as under:
“SA. Counter-claim by defendant –
(1) A defendant in a suit may, in
right of pleading a set-off under V’
by way of counter–claim,.against’theelizirnv o4f.the_V K V’
plaintiff, any right or c:laim.,iln ?feS,pect’*of
of action accruing to the dlefendafnvt
plaintiff either beloreor after me” suit l’ l
but before the de_fendant hash delivered his
defence or before ilimited forlfldelivering
his defence such counter-
clair_r1″i.s_ in :the”na;t1ire. alllclaiifnlfor damages or
{underlining by me]
Provided ‘:_s.ulchl_:cou:.~1ter–claim shall not exceed the
pecunialiy 1imitsA.o’f jurisdiction of the Court.
‘«.y’aul””cross–suit so as to enable the Court to
.,ySuchll’cou-nter–claim shall have the same effect as
“-..,,_:Pfio’n–ounce a final judgment in the same suit,
. on the original claim and on the counter-
claim.
The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written
statement in answer to the counter–claim of the
defendant within such period as may be fixed by
the Court. \
./’/_
(4) The cour1ter–claim shall be treated as a __pla1′:t1t
and governed by the rules applicable to pIa.i_tits.”
8. Order 6 Ruie 17 of CPC
amendment of pleadings. The proviso appei’-i’ded’V”twhVerVetoV
does not permit the amendmentV”pray_’ed:i’ béei.ng~ jai!o’\i{ied.}’:’i1.if
the trial of the suit has commenced. it
9. The claim . putforth”‘heVi:npu:’a-..counter–ciVaim, has
to be examined keepindViniyiepiiiif:the:_:Vpvro~uis.ion in Order 8
Rule 6~A CPC, ‘i’\flpj’_gyit to is an additional
right, which4’Vm:a’yi””beV–. of,3any right or claim, the
cause hauia/er, must accrue either
before the suit but before the
defendant ih”asV_:’rais.edA°his'””defence. The petitioners in LA
raiseidyyéthetwpiéavthat, the piaintiffs have trespassed
of”_j.the aforesaid property during July 2010.
Theéécause ofaction for filing the counter-claim necessarily
ari’sen with the alleged Act. LA No.18, in my opinion,
maintainabie, since the cause of action to the
.’petitioners against the respondents did not arose either
a”””
before or after filing of the suit and at any event, before
the time limit allowed for filing of the written state~m’e.nt~.or
delivering of the written statement. The suito–‘llafyjinfgfbiee-nfi
filed in the year 2002 and the wri.tt§en s~taterrien’t””ha.ying
been filed immediately thereafter, the
place, the cause of action~’Fp’r..y..the alleged”.cou_nte.r–claim=.L’
having allegedly arisen in thef–t_ria_l:§court is
justified in passing The matter is
squarely covered. the” in AIR 2008 SC
merit and shall stand
dismiss.ed;.’
_However; the p’etl’t’ioners would be entitled to file a
«._Asui:1′[siee_kjng_ approprtate relief in accordance with law.
of both parties is kept open in such
p ro cyeedvla if
l.\lo_.Aicosts. Sd/’
WEE
” ifksj/–