Judgment These writ petitions have been filed by the defendants questioning the orders passed by the trial court rejecting the applications filed by them seeking amendment to the written statements purporting to set up counter-claims. 2. The plaintiff (respondent) has filed suits on 15.12.2006 to eject the defendants (the petitioners herein) and put it in possession of the suit property and to pay the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the suit premises for continuing to remain in occupation after the termination of the tenancy and for consequential reliefs. The case3 of the plaintiff in brief is that, the suit property was purchased by it in a an public auction conducted by the Income Tax Department on 08.03.2004 and the sale deed was executed on 09.02.2005, which has been registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore and thereafter the katha of composite property was changed to its name and that, it has paid the tax. The property-Mohan Building, consists of about 43 shops, which are independent and separately occupied by different tenants and having district shop numbers and the defendants being the tenants, are in occupation of the shops. The petitioners along with other tenants of the building had filed W.P.No.12450/2004 challenging the public auction and the writ petition was dismissed on 02.09.2005. Writ Appeal No.3494/2005 filed was dismissed as withdrawn. The defendants are not prompt in payment of rent and there is accumulated arrears. Notice terminating the tenancy of each of the defendant was issued and the demand made therein having not been complied with, stating that, the cause of action to file the suit has arisen on 09.02.2005 and subsequently when the legal notices terminating the tenancy was issued and upon the failure and negligence on the part of the defendants to vacate the respective premises in their occupation, the suits seeking the reliefs notices supra was filed. 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 liable to be dispossessed from the plaint schedule premises. 4. Concededly, issues were framed on 10.12.2007. Applications filed to raise additional issues were allowed and additional issues were framed on 02.03.2009. For the plaintiff, affidavit evidence of PW1 was filed, PW-1 deposed and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 were marked on 22.04.2009. 5. 4. Concededly, issues were framed on 10.12.2007. Applications filed to raise additional issues were allowed and additional issues were framed on 02.03.2009. For the plaintiff, affidavit evidence of PW1 was filed, PW-1 deposed and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 were marked on 22.04.2009. 5. At that stage, the defendants filed applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statements. The suits were adjourned for filing statement of objections. Objections having been filed, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the applications seeking amendment of written statements raising counter-claims was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed these writ petitions. 6. Indisputably, when the petitioners filed applications in the suits to amend the written statement i.e., to incorporate the counter-claims, for a decree against the plaintiff, issues and additional issues had been framed and trial had commenced. The applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the trial court mainly on the ground that, the suits for ejectment cannot be converted as suits of the defendants for specific performance, by observing that, the defendants can initiate separate proceedings to enforce the rights under Memorandum of Understanding. It was further observed that, the amendment sought is not necessary to determine the dispute between the parties and if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the suit and injustice would occasion to the opposite party. 7. Sri Uday Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, counter-claim is maintainable even in a suit for ejectment even if the cause of action put forward by the defendant in the suit did not arise out of cause of action put in suit by the plaintiff and that, under such circumstances, the trial court was not justified in passing the impugned order,. It was contended that, the scope of counter-claim in terms of Order 8 Rule 6-A of the Code has not been noticed and on the pleadings, the trial court ought to have allowed the counter-claim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. On the scope and contend of Order 8 Rule 6-A of CPC, learned senior counsel referred to various decisions of the Apex Court and of this court and contended that, the conclusion of the trial court was not warranted. On the scope and contend of Order 8 Rule 6-A of CPC, learned senior counsel referred to various decisions of the Apex Court and of this court and contended that, the conclusion of the trial court was not warranted. It was submitted that, in view of enlargement of scope for entertaining counterclaim under the amendment to the code brought about by Act 104 of 1976, the counter-claims made by the petitioners’ fall within the ambit and scope of Order 8 Rule 6-A of CPC. It was contended that, there is a misdirection adopted by the trial court, resulting in the impugned orders, which are irrational and illegal, being passed. 8. Sri G.S.Kannur, learned advocate appearing for the respondent contended that, the suits being one for ejectment, the counter-claims having not been made along with the written statements and having made after the framing the issues and commencement of trial, was rightly not allowed by the trial court. Learned counsel submitted that, the cause of action to the suit and the alleged cause of action for the counter-claims being district and separate, the applications being not maintainable, the trial court is justified in dismissing the same. 9. I have perused the writ petition/s record. Keeping in view the rival contentions, the short point for consideration would be; 10. The suits were filed by the respondent against the petitioners on 15.12.2006. After the written statements were filed by the defendants, issues and additional issues were framed and the suit went to trial. The applications seeking amendment of the written statements to incorporate the counterclaims were filed on the date, the affidavit evidence of PW-1 was filed, PW-1 was examined and the documents were marked. 11. Rule 6-A to 6-G in Order 8 of CPC conferring a specific right on a defendant to set up a counterclaim against the claim of a plaintiff was inserted pursuant to the amendment to the Code brought about by the Central Act 104 of 1976. 12. In MAHENDRAKUMAR & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS – AIR 1987 SC 1395 , the question which was considered was, whether counter-claim can be filed after filing of written statement by the defendant. The question was answered in the affirmative. 13. In SHANTI RAI DAS DEWANJEE VS. 12. In MAHENDRAKUMAR & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS – AIR 1987 SC 1395 , the question which was considered was, whether counter-claim can be filed after filing of written statement by the defendant. The question was answered in the affirmative. 13. In SHANTI RAI DAS DEWANJEE VS. DINESH CHANDRA DAY – (1997) 8 SCC 174 , it was held that, a counter-claim can be presented even after filing of written statement, provided that the cause of action for filing the same had arisen before or after institution of the suit and such cause of action had continued till the date of filing of the written statement or the extended date of filing of the written statement. 14. In SMT.PARVATHAMMA VS. K.R.LOKANATH – AIR 1991 Kar 283 , it was held that, the counter-claim, if not set up in the written statement, then it has to be set up before issues are framed, but at any rate before recording of evidence commences. The reasons which prevailed in arriving at the said conclusion were – Whether the counter-claims filed by the defendants/petitioners after framing of issues in the suits are maintainable? (a) Permitting filing of counter-claim at a belated stage will cause great prejudice to the plaintiff in a suit since he will not be able to adduce evidence by anticipating any counter-claim. (b) The scheme under the Rules 6-A to 6-G of Order 8 of the CPC does not permit by necessary implication such course; and (c) It would lead to protracting the trial and defeat the very object for which right to file counter-claim has been given. 15. In HANUMANTHASASTRI MAHADEVASASTRI PURANIK & ANOTHER VS. MADHAVA RAO & others – 1989(1) Kar L.J 405, it was held that, when the nature of the plaint claim and the defence pleaded in the written statement, substantially covers the relief sought for by the defendant by way of counter-claim and the trial of the suit has not reached a stage requiring reopening of the trial, there is no reason to disallow the application of the defendant, seeking leave to amend the written statement and put forward a counter-claim. 16. To resolve the conflict of opinion expressed in the decisions by the two learned judges of this court in the two decisions, noticed supra, the matter was referred to the Division Bench, for resolving the conflict. 16. To resolve the conflict of opinion expressed in the decisions by the two learned judges of this court in the two decisions, noticed supra, the matter was referred to the Division Bench, for resolving the conflict. In the case of SHANTESH GUREDDI VS. SMT. THAYAMMA – 1998(6) Kar.L.J 409 , the Division Bench has held as follows: “15. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the statutory provisions and legal prono9uncements as noticed above, the view taken by K.A.Swamy,J., appears to be quite appropriate and consistent with legal principles requiring fair trial which ensure avoidance of undue hardship to he parties to a proceedings, its conclusion with reasonable speed and fair opportunity to the plaintiff to appropriately defend himself against a counter-claim 16. xxxxxxxxxx 17. For the above reasons, we hold that the defendant can file his counter-claim even after filing of written statement but it should be before the commencement of the evidence in the trial so that the issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim as well granting fair opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence in that regard also.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. Trial is deemed to commence when issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence, as held in the case of KAILASH VS NANHKU, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and in the case of AJENDRAPRASADJI N PANDEY AND ANOTHER VS. SWAMI KESHAVPRAKASHDASJI N AND OTHERS, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 1 . 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 held as follows: “11. From the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfil the said precondition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness. In our opinion, would amount to “commencement of proceeding”. (Emphasis supplied) 19. In ROHIT SINGH VS. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness. In our opinion, would amount to “commencement of proceeding”. (Emphasis supplied) 19. In ROHIT SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 734 , after trial of the suit, application for impleading having been filed, a counter-claim was entertained at the instance of the interveners. After noticing the facts, it has been held as follows: “A counterclaim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a counterclaim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed. Therefore, the entertaining of the4 so-called counterclaim of defendants 3 to 17 by the trial court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. On that short ground the so-called counterclaim, filed by defendants 3 to 17 has to be held to be not maintainable.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. In view of the ratio of law declared by the Apex Court in the case of ROHIT SINGH (supra) and by the Division Bench in the case of SHANTESH GUREDDI (supra), the applications filed to amend the written statement to set up counter-claims having been filed after the framing of issues and commencement of trial are not maintainable and the trial court was justified in dismissing the applications, though the different reasons. In the result, the writ petitions fail and shall stand dismissed. No costs.