Dismissed¶68

Sri Sampangiramaiah v. Sri N Ramesh

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2025WP/31860/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court 2025 writ petition dismissed; Article 227 certiorari against trial Court order allowing amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with inclusion of counter claim; O.S.No.852/2025 permanent injunction suit; defendants' counter claim for delivery of 5 guntas encroached in Sy.No.26/1; cost Rs.2,000/-; Civil Judge and JMFC Krishnarajapuram; divergent stand in written statement permissible; survey without notice left to trial; statement of objections to counter claim; no opinion on merits; Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners/plaintiffs to file a statement of objections to the counter claim, if so advised. ¶68

Sri Sampangiramaiah Vs Sri N Ramesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioners/plaintiffs to file a statement of objections to the counter claim, if so advised.

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order allowing the defendants' application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement and include a counter claim should be set aside. +1 more

¶59

Court's answer

The Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court on the defendants' application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, including the filing of the counter claim.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

Unlike the plaintiffs, the defendants are at liberty to take divergent stands and file divergent statements in their written statement, and are entitled to file a counter claim to the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

¶65

Key takeaways

The plaintiffs' apprehensions regarding the counter claim and the survey conducted without notice are matters to be thrashed out in the course of trial; the plaintiffs are at liberty to file a statement of objections to the counter claim, which will be dealt with in accordance with law.ratio¶65
The Court did not consider issuance of notice to the respondents/defendants necessary as it was not inclined to entertain the petition.ratio¶47
The Court expressly made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) No. 31860 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Pradeep Singh Yerur J., 24-10-2025) - Dismissed. Petitioners, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in O.S.No.852/2025 (a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajapuram), challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the trial Court's order allowing the defendants' application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement and add a counter claim alleging that the plaintiffs encroached 5 guntas of Sy.No.26/1, permitted on payment of Rs.2,000/- cost. Held: defendants, unlike plaintiffs, are entitled to take divergent stands in the written statement and to file a counter claim; the plaintiffs' grievances regarding the counter claim and a survey allegedly conducted without notice are matters to be thrashed out at trial; liberty reserved to the plaintiffs to file a statement of objections to the counter claim. No notice was issued to the respondents and the Court expressed no opinion on the merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42194 WP No. 31860 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 31860 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SAMPANGIRAMAIAH S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA

¶9

SINCE DEAD BRINGING IN LRS

¶10

SMT LAKSHAMMA W/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO 220 BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE

¶11

BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST 560 049

¶12

SMT SHASHIKALA S D/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH W/O MUNIRAJU A C AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO 120/2 2^ND CROSS

¶13

AGRAHARA VILLAGE BENGALURU

¶14

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

NORTH BENGALURU RURAL

¶16

DISTRICT 560 064

¶17

SRI RAMCHANDRA B S S/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

¶18

AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶19

R/A NO 220 BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE

¶20

BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU

¶21

RURAL DISTRICT 560 049

¶22

SRI B S ANAND S/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶23

R/A NO 220 BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE

¶24

BENGALURU EAST TALUK

¶25

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 049

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:42194 WP No. 31860 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

SMT NAGAVENI S D/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH W/O RAVIKUMAR AGE ABOUT 37 YEAS R/A NO 79 14^TH MAIN NEAR SBI BANK HONGASANDRA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST 560 068

¶30

…PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SMT. KALPANA.P.V.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

SRI N RAMESH S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS NO 332 KALPARUKSHA NILAYLA

¶34

1^ST CROS GULAPPA GOWDA

¶35

LAYOUT KEMPAPURA DASARAHALLIH A FORM POST BENGALURU 560 024

¶36

SRI N GULAPPA S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS NO 332 KALPARUKSH NILAYLA

¶37

1^ST CROSS GULAPPA GOWDA KEMPAPURA DASARAHALLI H A FORM POST BENGALURU 560 024

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 WHICH IS PASSED ON IA DATED 01.10.2018 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN OS.NO.852/2025 BY CIVOIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJAPURAM, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE A.

¶40

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:42194 WP No. 31860 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶47

This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to respondents/defendants as this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C;

¶48

The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff and the respondents are defendants before the trial Court.

¶49

The parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶50

The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.852/2025 seeking permanent injunction before the trial Court.

¶51

During the suit proceedings, after filing of the written statements, the defendants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C seeking amendment of the written statement, wherein the defendants have sought for certain averments

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:42194 WP No. 31860 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

based on the subsequent events that had taken place after filing of the suit and stated that the plaintiffs have unlawfully encroached upon the portion of defendants land bearing Sy.No.26/1 measuring an extent of 5 guntas. The defendants have also sought to include the counter claim from the Court seeking direction to the plaintiffs to deliver of 5 guntas of land. The defendants have stated that in the application that these facts are known only after the institution of the suit and when the encroachment has taken place at the instance of plaintiffs, they were not aware and cause of action did not arise much prior to the time of filing of the written statement. The Trial Court has allowed the said application on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. The plaintiffs have questioned the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application to amend the written statement and to include the counter claim.

¶56

Learned counsel for plaintiffs has urged several contentions, contending that the application filed for amendment itself is not maintainable as there is no cause of action shown by the defendants to incorporate such an amendment or to include the counter claim in the written statement. The survey has been conducted pursuant to filing of the suit. However, there is no mention of issuing notice of the

¶57

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42194 WP No. 31860 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

survey to the plaintiffs and no such document has been placed before this Court by the defendants. Therefore, she contends that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and the same requires to be set aside. Learned counsel further contends that hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if this application is allowed as the defendants are not entitled to file the counter claim to the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction and on such grounds, learned counsel for plaintiffs seeks to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

¶60

On careful perusal of the impugned order, the suit is admittedly filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction. The defendants have filed the written statement and thereafter, they had sought to include certain averments as pleadings in the written statement and also sought for counter claim from the Court to direct the plaintiffs to handover the encroached portion of the property to the defendants to adjudicate the dispute in question which has arisen after filing of the written statement by way of amendment, which is subsequent even after filing of the suit . Therefore, the trial Court passed the impugned order, wherein it is alleged that the plaintiffs have encroached the portion of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.26/1 measuring an extent of 5 guntas.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:42194 WP No. 31860 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

In fact, the defendants are at liberty to take divergent

¶65

stand and file divergent statements in his written statement unlike that of the plaintiffs, so also, they are entitled to file counter claim to the suit filed by the plaintiffs. However, apprehension of the plaintiffs is with regard to the counter claim and the survey that is conducted without notice is contrary to law which would all be subject matter of the trial and would be thrashed out in the course of the trial. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC including filing of the counter claim. The plaintiffs would be at liberty to file statement of objections to the said counter claim if so advised and the same would be dealt in accordance with law.

¶66

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. This Writ petition is dismissed, as the same is devoid of merits.

¶69