Disposed¶71

Smt. H. Bhagirathi v. Sri. R. Gangappa

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026WP/24729/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Counter claim by impleaded defendant after commencement of trial; impleadment under Order I Rule 10; Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri (2020(2) SCC 394) held inapplicable/distinguished; limitation objection to counter claim to be raised in written statement and decided on merits; writ under Articles 226/227 against trial Court order; Karnataka High Court; Nelamangala; writ petition disposed; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no interference in the trial Court's order dated 09.09.2022; all contentions urged by the parties kept open. ¶71

Smt. H. Bhagirathi Vs Sri. R. Gangappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with no interference in the trial Court's order dated 09.09.2022; all contentions urged by the parties kept open.

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 allowing I.A.No.11 (accepting the counter claim of defendant No.4 / respondent No.10, filed after commencement of trial) calls for interference in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. +1 more

¶60

Court's answer

The enunciation of law in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri (no counter claim can be entertained once trial has commenced) has no application to the facts of this case, since respondent No.10 was arrayed as defendant No.4 after framing of the issues and after commencement of trial.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

The contention that the counter claim is barred by limitation can always be raised by the petitioners by filing a written statement to the counter claim, and the trial Court can consider that contention on merits while deciding the suit.

¶64

Key takeaways

No interference is called for in the order of the trial Court; the writ petition is disposed of and all contentions urged by the parties are kept open.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.) — W.P. No.24729/2022 (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, disposed of on 08.06.2026. The petitioners challenged the order dated 09.09.2022 of the 1st Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in O.S.No.136/2002 (new O.S.No.143/2020) c/w O.S.No.116/2014 allowing I.A.No.11, whereby the trial Court accepted the counter claim of defendant No.4 (respondent No.10), who had been impleaded after framing of issues and commencement of trial pursuant to an Order I Rule 10 application allowed on 03.01.2019 (challenge in W.P.No.5570/2019 dismissed on 18.11.2021). Held: (i) the Supreme Court ruling in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri, 2020(2) SCC 394 (no counter claim entertainable once trial has commenced) has no application to the facts of the case; (ii) the contention that the counter claim is barred by limitation can be raised by the petitioners by filing a written statement to the counter claim and considered by the trial Court on merits while deciding the suit. No interference called for; writ petition disposed of; all contentions kept open.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27184 W.P. No.24729/2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.24729/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. H. BHAGIRATHI W/O LATE T.M. SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶8

SMT. CHANDRAKALA T.S. W/O CHANDRASEKHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O LATE T.M. SHIVARUDRAPPA.

¶9

SMT. VEENA T.S. W/O UMESH B.M. D/O LATE T.M. SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. GEETHA T.S. D/O LATE T.M. SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT. THIMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562111.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SYED KHADER NAWAZ, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. R. GANGAPPA S/O LATE D. RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27184 W.P. No.24729/2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. T.V. NANJAMMA S/O LATE R. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶20

SRI. G. CHIDANANDA S/O LATE R. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶21

SRI. G. CHETHANA S/O LATE R. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶22

SMT. G. HEMA D/O LATE R. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶23

SRI. G. SHIVANANDA S/O LATE R. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶24

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT. NO.2, 8TH CROSS MAGADI ROAD

¶25

BENGALURU-560024.

¶26

SRI. R. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE D RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A NO.528/2, O T C ROAD CHICKPET BENGALURU-560053.

¶27

SRI. R. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE D. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶28

SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27184 W.P. No.24729/2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SRI. B. MANJUNATH S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶32

KUMARI BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶33

RESPONDENT NOS.7, 8 AND 9 ARE R/A NO.528/2, O T C ROAD CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560053.

¶34

GUNDAIAH S/O LATE RUDRAPPA @ PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR’S.

¶35

10(a) VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶36

10(b) RENUKESH S/O LATE GUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶37

10(c) SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE GUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶38

10(d) MAHALAKSHMI D/O LATE GUNDAIAIH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶39

(a) TO (d) R/AT. SHIVAGANGE ROAD DABHAS PETE, SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562111.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. H.K. BASAVARAJ, ADV., FOR R6 SRI. S. NAGESHA, ADV., FOR R10 (a to d) SRI. CHETHAN G.H. ADV., FOR R10 (e to f)

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27184 W.P. No.24729/2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

R8 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD:13.07.2023

¶45

NOTICE TO R1 TO R9 ARE D/W)

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.09.09.2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN OS.NO.136/2022 (NEW NO.143/2020) C/W OS.NO.116/2014 ON IA NO.11 WHEREIN LEARNED TRAIL JUDGE HAS ALLOWED THE IA NO.11 (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC.

¶47

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

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.136/2002 (new O.S.No.143/2020) c/w with O.S.No.116/2014 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Nelamangala (for short, ‘the trial Court’ ).

¶51

Heard Sri.Syed Khader Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.H.K.Basavaraj, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, Sri.S.Nagesha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.10(a to d), Sri.Chethan G.H., learned counsel

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:27184 W.P. No.24729/2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

for the respondent No.10(e and f) and perused the material available on record.

¶56

The petitioners have filed O.S.No.136/2002 (new number O.S.No.143/2020) seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein. It is submitted that the trial Court framed the issues, posted the matter for evidence and at that stage respondent No.10 herein has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 seeking impleadment on certain grounds, which came to be allowed by the trial Court on 03.01.2019. It is to be noticed that the order of the trial Court of impleadment was assailed by the petitioners herein in W.P.No.5570/2019, which came to be dismissed on 18.11.2021. In other words, the trial Court’s order of impleadment of the respondent No.10 herein i.e., defendant No.4, in the suit has attained finality. The defendant No.4, who was later impleaded after framing of the issues and after commencement of the trial, filed a written statement as well as a counter claim in the suit filed by the petitioners seeking prayer to declare that defendant No.4 is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and the relief

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:27184 W.P. No.24729/2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

of permanent injunction. The said counter claim was accepted by the trial Court under the impugned order which was assailed on the ground that allowing the counter claim after the commencement of trial is impermissible.

¶61

It is to be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶62

in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra

¶63

Agnihotri and others¹ held that no counter claim can be entertained once the trial has commenced. It is also to be noticed that the respondent No.10 herein, who was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the suit, was after framing of the issues and after commencement of trial. Hence, the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

¶64

It is to be noticed that the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the counter claim is barred by law of limitation. In my considered view, the said contention can be always raised by the petitioners by filing a written statement to the counter claim filed by defendant No.4

¶65