{"id":92381,"date":"2010-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-06T00:35:12","modified_gmt":"2015-10-05T19:05:12","slug":"ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA;'_:G'O\u00ab\\1Vv:!:\u00a7,\u00a7{  _\n\nW.P.NO.35596\/2010 &w.P.No.3579.7s,I\u00e9c.1o\u00a7f . V\nC\/W W.P.NO.35595\/2010 & W.P'.i\\f-F).3S796[2vf)_JQ;--[k D'\nW.P.NO.35696\/2010 & W.P=,NO\u00bb..3~548W8m;5>j;M.Qm;1&Qn;V.'V-._\n\nW.P.NO.35697\/2010 & W.P.'NO;-35883'\/'?,,C:-1,VCJ,. \" \n\nW.P.NO.3S698\/2010 8:\\N.P.NO\ufb01428\u00bb:\"2{,}1.QL \nW.P.NO.35849\"=3'5850\/2010,--._     \nW.P.NO.35594\/2010 & W;.P;i\\l_O.37G--3_3[2O1O4\nW.P.NO.35695\/2010 .& W.P..N'O-36550\/20:0'-(GM--CPC)\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n Sri .\u00bbAishoDI< Kumar-n... ..... \n\nM\/s. M.Shravan4.\u00a7<u_mar'\u00e9i'rid":1 _ _  \nR.Ashok Kumar    ~   \n\nA propzvrietorsiiip ca'.%ryingzQn business in a\nShop No.7'=8'7,V  Btiri-i.di'nq's,'\nChickpet, " '  "  \nBangaiore"~.__S6.0 053;, " . \n\nRepresented" by its7'PrO-p rietor\n\n PETITIONER\n(in W.P.N0.35596 865797\/2010)\n\n'AM\/Os'.--.riV1A\/e;As*1'::.ay,rryiri=g or:-wi\u00a7us'in\u00e9ss'~in_._.E1J\nShop No.78,1-,'--\u00a7Vio\u00a7\"'jan B:i_i'3di'i1gs,-.,<' \nChickpet, " _   \nBangaioreg   , \n\nRepresented by its'-~!?rio,p r'i--et'b-rt '\nSri M.Reddappa, .agejc$. 6'6.y'e.a'rs.\n\n " V j  "  ...PETITIONER\n '(in W.P.N0.35695 81 36550\/2010)\n\n A:(By_yWSri.'itiday-..Hoi|a, Senior Counsel for petitioners in all\nWP . y  \n\nAm\n\n x,M\/s. Rajesh Exports Limited,\n P,u_biic"Lirnited Company,\n "\u00ab_In_c:orporated under the provisions of\n_  'Fhe'Company's Act, having its\n\n  " Registered office at No.4,\n Batavia Chambers,\n\n\n\nKumara Krupa Road East,\nBangalore - 560 001,\nRepresented by its Authorised\nRepresentative, Sri M.K.E\\3arang.\n\n... RESPQN 0' "~ V\n\n(By Sri G.S.Kannur, Adv.)\n\n(Common i__n{all4A"W,'g'P,.sv) .\n\nW.P.No.35596 &35797\/2010, is;;r;l.ed7ti,i~ide'r 'A?'t"i.c.I'e?s:\n226 and 227 of the Constitution of India_, prayi'.ng"to quash \nthe order dated 10.6.2010 passed innO.3.No._.13?49.9\/2006 2 '\n\nby the XXVI Additional Cityu"'lCivil ':lrid'ge,= Bangalore\n(Arinexure -- G) in so far as it____re}ected the-\u00abI,.,A.|\\lr?).IV & V\nfiled under Order VI Rul'e..._17 of th'e..CP(;.-.,a '0 "\n\nW.P.No.355_95 &3.57'9s\/2010 'isv.fi'l"eid-"'under Articles\n226 and 227 of.the._Col;flstitu'tion of"_-Ind'ia',\u00ab praying to quash\nthe order dated 10.6_2'01'O_ "passed"En"'O".S.No.17447\/2006\nby the X);(VI"~..Ad~d'1i_tion.al__ "C,it'y_ '[Civ_il Judge, Bangalore\n(Annexure -._G')'._ ii}, so fa,r"a_s._it"rej\u00e9\u00a7Cted the I.A.No.IV & V\nfiled un.der~ Order VII; rRu'l'e, 1.7 of"the"VCPC.\n\n,--'J\\.l'.P.N4'o'.3:569t3 assess\/2o1o is filed under Articles\n226~a,ndll227 of't'3%3...CQ:1stitution of India, praying to quash\n\nf"'ithetrdrder dated 10.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.17S01\/2006\n by"-\u00bbthe__ 'XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore\n\u00a5(An_enexure, 4 G), in so far as it rejected the I.A.No.IV & V\n\nfil-ed'-u'nder"_'Qrd:=er VI Rule 17 of the CPC.\n\niiil..\u00a7~.i\\lo.35697 865883\/2010 is filed under Articles\n\nK 'i\ufb01.226--~and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash\n"-,"t_he._Qi'der dated 10.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.17-450\/2006\n--  by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore\n\n(Annexure -- G) in so far as It rejected the I.A.No.III & IV\n\nI  "filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.\n\n\n\n5\n\nW.P.No.35698 866428\/2010 is filed under Articles\n226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash\nthe order dated 10.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.17613\/2006\n\nby the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore\n(Annexure - G) in so far as it rejected the I.A.No.II;I 8; IV\nfiled under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.  \n\nW.P.No.35849~35850\/2010 is filed un"d._ervjfArticles.l\n226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, p'ra'yi'injg~ ,to=.q'u.ash \nthe order dated 10.6.2010 passed in"O S.--.l\\l0;.'1.758_2\/2006".\nby the XXVI Additional City Civil_"'r.1--*ddge,"~ 't3arig:"a_l,d*r<:e;\n(Annexure - G) in so far as it rejectedgthe I.Ar.N'o..I'.II \n\nfiled under order VI Rule 17 .f5f't_he c'P<:_.'\n\nw.P.l\\ie..355'94--.'_ &3.7o3._3\/2_o1f;G is filed under Articles\n226 and 227 or'-""t_he 'Consti.t--.Jtio.n= of}Ii'idia, praying to quash\nthe ordVeif_da'ted '1p.,6.201_o pa..s,sed3' in O.S.No.17615\/2006\nby the XX'\\lIif._Ad\u00a5'jitior1a.l' City Civil Judge, Bangalore\n(Annex*ure._ - G) !.Fi~_,SOl fa-r__as. it -rejected the I.A.No.IV & VI\nfiled under Order VI:i'R_uie__  of the CPC.\n\n.\u00bbQVV.P.No.3'5'695_____&36550\/2010 is filed under Articles\n\n V'"~226'~andT":22"7..yof the Constitution of India, praying to quash\n thge-\u00bboVrd..er\u00ab.dat\u00e9d_ 10.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.17470\/2006\n'by.,e.thee_'=xXVIr-. Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore\n\n(An'nexu're."_*5--..Gjin so far as it rejected the I.A.No.IV & VI\nfiled__und.er Qrder VI Rule 17 of the CPC.\n\nThese petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in\n\nA ":.'B.*V group this day, the Court made the following:\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
These writ petitions have been filed by the<\/p>\n
defendants questioning the orders passed by the triai-c_ou_rt<\/p>\n
rejecting the applications fiied by <\/p>\n
amendment to the written statements\u00bb purporti’n.g_Vvto’=setV up ”<\/p>\n
counter–ciaims.\n<\/p>\n
2. The plaintiff (respdn’dent)hV’  on 0′<\/p>\n
15.12.2006 to eject the d_efen.da’:rts'{ti*ie\ufb02petitioners herein)
\nand put it in possession  to pay the<\/p>\n
arrears of rent, a~n:d*-darijagjesbfo-reuse.andoccupation of the<\/p>\n
suit pre’mi’ses…:i*or  towr\u00e9main in occupation after
\nthe tervrninationgof\u00bbVt’hve_:”ten~ancy and for consequential<\/p>\n
reiiefs_._ Th\u00e9’~icase_iof Athe”~’piaintiff in brief is that, the suit<\/p>\n
was purc’i’i’ased by it in a an public auction<\/p>\n
 Income Tax Department on 08.03.2004<\/p>\n
andlthe satletdeed was executed on 09.02.2005, which has<\/p>\n
0′-,.,_”\u00bb._been “rec_”iistered in the Office of the Sub~Registrar,<\/p>\n
‘jGand’iA_iinagar, Bangalore and thereafter the katha of<\/p>\n
 co\u00e9mposite property was changed to its name and that, it<\/p>\n
N<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
,.\n<\/p>\n
has paid the tax. The property-Mohan Building, consists of<\/p>\n
about 43 shops, which are independent and sevpatate.lVy<\/p>\n
occupied by different tenants and having <\/p>\n
numbers and the defendants being the  in <\/p>\n
occupation of the shops. The peti”tior:’er*s’i’ al1on\u00e9;’  <\/p>\n
tenants of the building h’a:d”‘-~.,fi|ed'”~\\\/ti.P.No.,,’i?;fi’Ss0.\/2004<\/p>\n
challenging the public;__auctioAn..:an,d ‘the wr’it.,,pet,ii\u00a7ion was
\ndismissed on o2.o9.2oo*sf.w5ritfAppee,i;,.,i$ie,;3494\/2005 filed
\nwas dismissed_as__withd’ra-xiliijp. are not
\nprompt in   is accumulated
\narrears, ____ Vilthlegtenancy of each of the
\ndefendants the demand made therein<\/p>\n
having notsheenV’cornpl\u00bbie’d_;with, stating that, the cause of<\/p>\n
_ action to fi|eV”theV suit has arisen on 09.02.2005 and<\/p>\n
 .su’b.s;equAeAn%t–ixf*~when the legal notices terminating the<\/p>\n
ten”a.ncy”\u00bb-J’avs._ issued and upon the failure and negligence on<\/p>\n
 the’.4″‘par”–t:4.Gl*: the defendants to vacate the respective<\/p>\n
 in their occupation, the suits seeking the reliefs<\/p>\n
_  noti”ced supra was filed.\n<\/p>\n
X\/\/”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3. The petitioners (defendants) have filed written
\nstatements on 10.04.2007 inter alia contending that, the<\/p>\n
suit\/s are not maintainable and that they are not iia.’|\u00a7\ufb02I’e.to<\/p>\n
be dispossessed from the plaint schedule premise-s–..’,j;.’__’__:”I’  <\/p>\n
4. Concededly, issues were _.~H.f.r:a~mVed:: .   <\/p>\n
10.12.2007. Applications filed to__ raise.fjvad.di:t.io’na’I’~.’i’ssV0esf<\/p>\n
were allowed and additional..__ issues”‘were\u00bb'”fra:n1ed_:’; on <\/p>\n
02.03.2009. For the plaintiff,vuf’faffidaVvit ftevigdencelgof PW–1
\nwas filed, PW–1 depogseid and: Ex.P–10 were
\nmarked on 22.o4,.12009.A…_._o:’_\u00ab.0  0 0 V V<\/p>\n
 -.  defendants filed applications<\/p>\n
under Order 6 VvRti’le.”‘t.’7\u00bb* for amendment of the written<\/p>\n
_ stat.e.t3a’eri.ts. T’h’e_.stiits:were adjourned for filing statement<\/p>\n
 of’\u00abo0}ec’tiAo%n.s:\u00a7”~\u00ab,Objections having been filed, upon hearing<\/p>\n
fttheh-.Viea”rne’d._ cotviiinsel for the parties, the applications<\/p>\n
–‘ seei{ing”‘-vagme\ufb01ndment of written statements raising counter-<\/p>\n
 was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants<\/p>\n
—  h’ai)’e’Afi|ed these writ petitions. <\/p>\n
\/,\/”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. Indisputably, when the petitioners “filed<\/p>\n
applications in the suits to amend the written ste~tefrti_e~.n_t<\/p>\n
i.e., to incorporate the counter-claims, for a dec:reeA:’a–.gai.ns7t.,’ ~<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, issues and additional _issu_es h_acf’b’een’f’ra’_med,_V it”<\/p>\n
and trial had commenced. The a.ppli_”cat’ions. <\/p>\n
petitioners were dismissed bvf_Vti~i.e triai~c:ou.rt  the = L’<\/p>\n
ground that, the suits for eje,ctrne.nt’V..c_ann’o’tT.he converted
\nas suits of the defendants jfor\u00a7.,’s’p’e’csi,fi.cV’performance, by
\nobserving that,_:’-the ,d’efen’da.r;t_gi_”cant.:i:’ni’tiate separate
\nproceedings.-to  Memorandum of
\nUnderstan,diAng.f” :’V’1.:;,,it_”   observed that, the
\namendment  ‘necessary to determine the<\/p>\n
dispute between’_.’the*.i\u00b0parties and if the proposed<\/p>\n
_ amet\u00a5i:drn”ent isV’a”l!_o:wed’,: it will change the nature of the suit<\/p>\n
  _injuAstice:’w.ou|d occasion to the opposite party.<\/p>\n
Uday Holia, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
 appeasjing for the petitioners contended that, counter–c|aim<\/p>\n
‘ jwis ‘n*.aintainab|e even in a suit for ejectment even if the<\/p>\n
‘   of action put forward by the defendant in the suit did<\/p>\n
K\/J’<\/p>\n
E0<\/p>\n
not arise out of cause of action put in suit by the p\u00a7a_i_ntiff<\/p>\n
and that, under such circumstances, the trial courtf\ufb01v-asr.,n’ot<\/p>\n
justified in passing the impugned order. It  ”<\/p>\n
that, the scope of counter~claim in”te–rms–‘_:of  it<\/p>\n
6–A of the Code has not been  <\/p>\n
pleadings, the trial court :5 .t1a’*.xelV’-,a|”i’ovWedthe \u00b0 V<\/p>\n
counter-claim to avoidnjultipl-iciltf.of”-procleledingsi On the
\nscope and content of  CPC, learned
\nsenior counsei  of the Apex
\nCourt a\ufb01d 9′?  u’7′.?_””ut\u00e9’:”‘vl:”\u00ab’\u20ac\u00b0:.’5I””‘tVV|’1at, the conclusion
\nof the  xirarrarited. It was submitted
\nthat,  of scope for entertaining<\/p>\n
counter-clladinn underlt_h’e\u00ab.:_’amendment to the code brought<\/p>\n
  about. b\\,f’Act of…1976, the counter~claims made by the<\/p>\n
 ‘p:et’it.ioners’;’faj|”ii within the ambit and scope of Order 8 Rule<\/p>\n
6?A.”ol’  ftwas contended that, there is a misdirection<\/p>\n
‘._adop’ted'”A.:_tryl’ the trial court, resulting in the impugned<\/p>\n
V’ iffolrder.s, xivhich are irrational and illegal, being passed.<\/p>\n
i,<\/p>\n
8. Sri G.S.Kannur, learned advocate appearing for<\/p>\n
the respondent contended that, the suits being-lj’o~nfe_:io4r<\/p>\n
ejectment, the counter–c|aims having not been”inade’:.a’I’cI3i’g*iA ”<\/p>\n
with the written statements and..h\u00bbav_i,ng .’14’riile”de’i’;,attet_;th’te, <\/p>\n
framing the issues and commenceziinentollf  was <\/p>\n
not allowed by the trial court..D”Learned.__couAnseI’*:._gu”bniitted ” i<\/p>\n
that, the cause of action to th–e~  the’a.!le.g’ed cause
\nof action for the co’ulnter’~_cEfaVi:ins”efbeing distinct and
\nseparate, the ap:pii.catio”ns”being’not rna\u00abl,ntainab|e, the trial<\/p>\n
cou rt is justified_ i’n..rJ–is’m.i_s.si”r~..g t-hellsancie.<\/p>\n
 it’_’I’Vl.i:__a\\{e”\u00a7.ylslperusled_  writ petition\/s record.
\nKeepingiin ‘~._:sisew.__thAe’lriy’a.l:”contentions, the short point for<\/p>\n
consideration would be; H<\/p>\n
‘A  Vi\/snethserythe counter–clai’ms filed by the defendants
\nV  st\/’p’,ie’t.i,tionierS after framing of issues in the suits are<\/p>\n
‘  ” ma;nts,l-,\u00bbiiab;e2<\/p>\n
 *  10″.’ The suits were filed by the respondent against<\/p>\n
 thseltpetitioners on 15.12.2006. After the written<\/p>\n
T ‘statements were filed by the defendants, issues and<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
r<\/p>\n
additional issues were framed and the suit went to_.__trial.<\/p>\n
The applications seeking amendment of the.\u00abj”w,i*iitt’en<\/p>\n
statements to incorporate the counter–ciaims .were,ff’i’le’di or-‘.2 *<\/p>\n
the date, the affidavit evidence of \u00bbF>~\\f\\.f.1-,1   if<\/p>\n
was examined and the documents “wer1ernari<~ed'._" A  <\/p>\n
11. Rule 6–A to 6-6 ‘iln_,:Owrder A8 of  a ” if<\/p>\n
specific right on a defendan,t.—to”V-set’up ‘a’–cou,n’ter–claim
\nagainst the ciaim of a pulaintiff  pursuant to the
\namendment to Code’ the Central Act<\/p>\n
104 of 1975;  *’lf.”,..’;’. ‘ i<\/p>\n
12. . ‘Inf’MiA’ii:iE’iiI,,oRA’–~i<oMAR & ANOTHER vs. STATE
\nOF MADHYA4 i~"R_A'i3e"'si{i EQQTHERS – AIR 1987 sc 1395, the<\/p>\n
ques.tion=which' was considered was, whether counter–c|aim<\/p>\n
 .ca'n._Vi:;e,:'fiMie,d'*~–.after filing of written statement by the<\/p>\n
llldefenida'rit'."_'\u00bb\u00ab.Ti"h;et;uestion was answered in the affirmative.<\/p>\n
 13-.~  SHANTI RAE DAS DEWAN3EE VS. DINESH<\/p>\n
l3"*-*\u00ab.__"-\u00bb\u00bbCHANDR_i5\\ DAY – (1997) 8 scc 174, it was held that, a<\/p>\n
if  ,V."V'cou_n:{:-er–claim can be presented even after filing of written<\/p>\n
\\i<\/p>\n
\/'T<\/p>\n
statement, provided that the cause of action for filing the<\/p>\n
same had arisen before or after institution of the..jst.iit.._a'nVd<\/p>\n
such cause of action had continued till the   =<\/p>\n
the written statement or the exter_1ded_date"of"tli'Ifino'o'f:.th'eV ll<\/p>\n
written statement.\n<\/p>\n
14. In SMT.PARVATH}i’i’4.,i:l\u00a7i,\\ VS.l”~K.lRr.–EOKANATH —
\nAIR 1991 Kai’ 283, it.w’a.5 heldlltti-at,.l?”the counter-claim, if
\nnot set up in the writtenst.atenient-;\u00ab..t’tien has to be set
\nup before issues:.’are;=._frarried} :bt:”t’~..at.7 any rate before
\nrecording    The reasons which
\nprevai|,edl”in”arriyin.\u00a7.:Vat_ttae_’ saidconclusion were –
\n bf counter-claim at a belated
\nit i’–stlageVw’i_lldcau\u00abise great prejudice to the plaintiff in
\na suit’ since he will not be able to adduce
\nV V lvlevidence by anticipating any counter-claim;
\nV    “scheme under the Rules ERMA to 6-0 of Order
\n‘ it  the CPC does not permit by necessary
\n. ‘vi’rnplicat.ion such course; and
\n(dc-)_. 1’ It would lead to protracting the trial and defeat
\nthe Very object for which right to file counter-
\nclaim has been given. K
\n\/1”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. In HANUMANTHASASTRI MAHADEVASASTRI<\/p>\n
PURANIK & ANOTHER VS. IVIADHAVA RAD & <\/p>\n
1989(1) Kar LJ 405, it was held that, when the  i-<\/p>\n
the plaint claim and the defence:\u00bbiple.adedM’in4″‘t.he’xwr_i:tte’n<\/p>\n
statement, substantially covers there:l.ief”Vsoog_ht..’ford <\/p>\n
defendant by way of cotJnter?dc:l4’aVi.m and ,t|’ie_utVr\u00ab~i,aE”‘:o’f”the: suite’<\/p>\n
has not reached a stage reqpui-rliirig ‘r’eopeni’ngV…ofVvithe trial,
\nthere is no reason  ufhe_vi\u00bb’.a.ppVlication of the
\ndefendant, seeki:rig_  st-‘Ftement
\nand put   <\/p>\n
  of opinion expressed in
\nthe  judges of this court in the<\/p>\n
two c’ecpision’s,, noticed sopra, the matter was referred to<\/p>\n
. l\u00b0’ithe’i’*!5i\\i\u00bb–i’sioh\ufb01enchwlllfor resolving the conflict. In the case<\/p>\n
-..oV’f.._h-Sulfi,?.i:.:l\\iT_pE:’v,?kl’jlICSUREDDI vs. SMT.THAYAMMA – 1998(6)<\/p>\n
Kar-.__L.3 V_<iO\u20ac:9vu,4T..'tAhe Division Bench has held as follows:<\/p>\n
.'.'1V._"ji. In our considered opinion, keeping in View the
\nstaiiutory provisions and legal pronouneernents as
\n noticed above, the View taken by K.A.Swamy.J.,
\nappears to be quite appropriate and consistent with<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
d\/.\/<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
legal principles requiring fair trial which ensure
\navoidance of undue hardship to the parties to a<\/p>\n
proceedings. its conclusion with reasonable speelediand<\/p>\n
fair opportunity to the plaintiff to app’ropriai.e’lylVdf-fendV<\/p>\n
himself against a counter-Claim.\n<\/p>\n
16. xxxxxx<\/p>\n
17. For the above reasons,  <\/p>\n
can file his Counier~clairn”—-.even Aafiers tilinlg-:.of…\\witten 2 L’<\/p>\n
statement but it should belljelfore the coinrzlenoement of
\nthe evidence in thehfial .issuesa’re”seitled in
\nrelation to the   aiivell granting fair
\noDDO1″iunitV to the l\ufb01iairitiff —-toael.d.tioe1.’eN7idenCe in that<\/p>\n
regard
\n “””    [Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
17.’ ._L’TriaE is de’en\u00a7”ed”‘t;o commence when issues are<\/p>\n
settE\u00a7;d”aind the c;_a’s’e isset down for recording of evidence,<\/p>\n
 ijhecase of KAILASH vs NANHKU,<\/a> reported in<\/p>\n
‘Q0-r3__5ij  and in the case of AJENDRAPRASADJI N<\/p>\n
PAN’sEY._;’ ‘ -A  AND ANOTHER vs. SWAMI<\/p>\n
M”—JKESHAVPl2AKASHDASJI N AND OTHERS, reported in<\/p>\n
 @2036’) 12 sec 1.\n<\/p>\n
.. N \/,<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
18. In the case of VIDYABAI VS. PADMALATHA,
\nreported in (2009) 2 SCC 409, with regard to the date of<\/p>\n
commencement of trial, it has been heid as follows: <\/p>\n
“1 1. From the order passed by the learned  <\/p>\n
it is evident that the respondents had not.’:been.,abte V’<\/p>\n
fulfil the said precondition. __,\ufb02e_ questdidoinfivtherefore, <\/p>\n
which arises for consideration is as _to \\’9′,J>h.’e’t’.’,’}’1’\u20ac’.1″‘i;t’t”43′,_'[I~7.Fl,?J_,’.’<\/p>\n
had commenced or not. [111 ourobinion,  jdtd: ‘Fhe’=dateV’–..<\/p>\n
on which the issues areifr_amed is ‘i:1fie’-._dda.te”‘of\ufb01firstd”V<\/p>\n
hearing. Provisions of  of \u00ab-Ciivil firocedure<\/p>\n
envisage takirl\ufb02 0fQ”v.aricius,_ st’e1:_)s,vat different stages of<\/p>\n
the proceeding. Filing i’~bfan.ddV’a\u00a7ffidaVit in lieu of
\nexaminatioi1ain–ch’i’ef’ of thei’r\u00bbwitnes_sv;’ in our opinion,<\/p>\n
v.2ouid ,aijaod:n.t”to'”‘*co:rnn1encefnent of proceeding;
\n‘ _ V 3 _ [Emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
19.””e\u00ab.,1_dn, R”o,HI;Tf.s!1NsH vs. STATE or ESIHAR,<\/p>\n
 rep\u00bbo~\u00a7:te,ci” Er; (2oo6)_____.1.2 sec 734, after trial of the suit,<\/p>\n
 ‘a.;5p!..iCa–\u00bbt_i4onffo’rimpleading having been fited, a counter-<\/p>\n
ciairri was’.V–“jefnfterta\u00e9ned at the instance of the interveners.<\/p>\n
 After no’ti.cing the facts, it has been held as follows:<\/p>\n
2    counterclaim, no doubt, couid be filed even after the<\/p>\n
 ‘inrritteii statement is filed, but that does not mean that a<\/p>\n
counterclaim can be raised after issues are framed and<\/p>\n
E\u00bb<\/p>\n
the evidence is closed. Therefore. the entertaining bf the<\/p>\n
so~ea11ed courlterclaim of defendants 3 to 17 by. _4tr..1fal<\/p>\n
court. after the framing: of issues for trial, <\/p>\n
iilegal and without iurisdiction. On that  i<\/p>\n
the sowcalled counterclaim. filer.1…bV’ deiiehdaii\u00e9ts ‘.3  1′? if<\/p>\n
has to be held to be not maint\u00a3i__iI1ab}e..I A
\nIfixniihasis’,:5iippli\u00a2d.i3<\/p>\n
20. In view of the ratiVQ.–ef’few-~deciei’ed..Aby..the Apex
\nCourt in the case of  and by the
\nDivision Bench in”th’e  (supra),
\nthe appIica::ti’o\u00a7’ns__Vsited  :tvi’:eVV.V\u00a7nVi’tten statement to
\nset up _r..ounte.f\u00a5ci’Vai;nn_s fiied after the framing
\nof issues  \u00absf triai are not maintainable<\/p>\n
and the”t..riha\u00a3_ Vt\u00a7oLiVrt_ justified in dismissing the<\/p>\n
 app.!it;a’tidns, th’duVgh_’__fQ:* different reasons.<\/p>\n
‘   the writ petitions fail and shall stand<\/p>\n
a\\td’\u00a7’.osts.\n<\/p>\n
EUQGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010 Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda 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\u00ab\\1Vv:!:\u00a7,\u00a7{ _ W.P.NO.35596\/2010 &w.P.No.3579.7s,I\u00e9c.1o\u00a7f . 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\u00bb..3~548W8m;5>j;M.Qm;1&Qn;V.’V-._ W.P.NO.35697\/2010 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92381","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-05T19:05:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\\\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-05T19:05:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2223,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\\\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-05T19:05:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\\\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-05T19:05:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-05T19:05:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010"},"wordCount":2223,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010","name":"M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-05T19:05:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-shravan-kumar-vs-ms-rajesh-exports-limited-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S M Shravan Kumar vs M\/S Rajesh Exports Limited on 15 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92381","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92381"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92381\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92381"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92381"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92381"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}