ORDER : 1. This petition by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.72/2022 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, V Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, (hereafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) is directed against the impugned order on I.A. No. IV dated 11.05.2025, whereby the said application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to introduce a counter claim at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a aforesaid suit against the petitioners - defendants for mandatory injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners-defendants, the trial Court framed issues and the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, at which stage, the petitioners filed the instant application seeking amendment by incorporating a counter claim. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court came to the conclusion that once evidence has commenced by the respondent- plaintiff examining himself as PW1, a counter claim cannot be introduced, by holding as under: ORDERS ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. IV 1. The defendants have filed this application under order VI rule 17 R/w. Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and prays to permit the defendants to amend their written statement as per proposed amendment in the interest of justice. 2. The application is supported with an affidavit sworn by the first defendant and stated that the facts sought to be incorporated in their written statement were forgotten to be stated therein. However, the defendants have recalled the omission recently and thought it fit and expedient to bring those facts on record in their written statement. It is further submitted that the amendment sought for will never change the nature, scope and defence pleaded in the written statement. However, the defendants have recalled the omission recently and thought it fit and expedient to bring those facts on record in their written statement. It is further submitted that the amendment sought for will never change the nature, scope and defence pleaded in the written statement. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between them and plaintiff, they are advised to file application for amendment of their written statement. If the application is allowed as prayed for no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the plaintiff as only chief-examination of plaintiff has begun and the above suit is posted for his further chief-examination. If not, the defendants will suffer great prejudice, irreparable injury and hardship. Hence, prays to allow this application. 3. In the objection the plaintiff has contended that the defendants seeking an order of the Court to amend the written statement as enumerated in the application at this belated stage is unsustainable both at law and on points of facts. The application is filed with a sole intention to drag on the proceedings and harass the plaintiff who is a senior citizen. The application is filed by the defendants to take away the accrued right of the plaintiff to get this suit decreed in their favour. It is further submitted that the amendment now sought to be incorporated if allowed, the nature of defense already taken by the defendants in their written statement will be changed substantially and allowing such an application also will amount to allowing substitution of a totally different defense. If the amendment as sought for by the defendants is allowed, it will take away the accrued right of the plaintiff to have his suit decreed in his favour. The proposed amendment if allowed, the same will amount to allowing the defendants to take contradictory plea which is destructive of the original plea taken by the defendants in the original written statement and as such the present plea urged by way of amendment should not be permitted as the same will cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff. The only intention of the defendants is to see that the plaintiff is harassed by delaying the proceedings in this suit as far as possible. The plea sought to be urged by way of amendment is also intended to take away the jurisdiction of this Court, which again if permitted, will cause serious hardship for the plaintiff. The only intention of the defendants is to see that the plaintiff is harassed by delaying the proceedings in this suit as far as possible. The plea sought to be urged by way of amendment is also intended to take away the jurisdiction of this Court, which again if permitted, will cause serious hardship for the plaintiff. If the amendment as sought for is disallowed, no hardship will be caused to the defendants. Mainly on these reasons the plaintiff has sought to dismiss the application with cost. 4. Heard. 5. Upon hearing argument and perusal of material placed on records, the following points would arise for consideration. POINTS 1. Whether the Interlocutory application No. IV filed by the defendants under order VI rule 17 R/w. Section 151 of CPC is deserves to be allowed ? 2. What order? 6. Upon hearing and on perusal of the materials on record, this court has proceeds to answer the aforesaid points as hereunder: POINT No.1: In the Negative. POINT No.2: As per final order for the following: REASONS 7. POINT No.1: The plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in vacant physical possession of the plaint 'A' schedule premises within the time fixed by the Court. The plaintiff also sought for directing the defendants to pay past damages at the rate of Rs.30.000/- per month for continued unauthorized occupation of plaint 'A' schedule premises from 01.11.2021 to 16.01.2022, mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month from this date till date of delivery of plaint 'A' schedule premises from this day till payment, cost of notice and such other reliefs. Now, the present case is set down for further chief-examination of Pw.1. At this stage, the defendants have filed this application and sought permission to amend their written statement as per proposed amendment. 8. The Proposed amendment read as under: To add paragraph no.18(a) and 18(b) in the written statement as follows: "18(a). For the reasons stated in paragraph no.13 of the written statement, the plaintiff is liable to pay damages a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendants with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.. from the date of issuance of reply notice i.e.. 21-10-2021 till full payment by the plaintiff. As on 20-10-2022, the said sum with interest comes to the tune of Rs.5,60,000/-. from the date of issuance of reply notice i.e.. 21-10-2021 till full payment by the plaintiff. As on 20-10-2022, the said sum with interest comes to the tune of Rs.5,60,000/-. Similarly, in case the plaintiff is held to be the licensor and his suit is decreed as prayed for, he is also liable to reimburse the financial loss suffered by the defendants as narrated in paragraph no.14 of the written statement a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-. The defendants seek counterclaim regarding payment of damages of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.. from 21-10-2021 which comes to the tune of Rs.5.60.000/- as on 20-10-2022 by the plaintiff to them and also reimbursement of a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to them by the plaintiff. The court fee on the sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- will be paid by the defendants in case the suit is decreed holding that the plaintiff is the licensor and defendants are licensees in respect of the plaint schedule commercial premises. 18(b). The defendants value the counterclaim for damages to the tune of Rs.5,60,000/- and paid court fee of Rs.36,975/-. The defendants value the counterclaim of reimbursement to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- and court fee of Rs.1,77,125/-, which will be paid by them if the suit is decreed as prayed for. 18(c). Therefore, the defendants pray that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree for the following reliefs: i) Directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 21-10-2022 till full payment as damages to the defendants towards mental agony suffered by them. ii) Directing the plaintiff to reimburse a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the defendants towards loss of income in case the suit is decreed as prayed for in his favour. 9. On careful perusal of the proposed amendment it prima facie appears that the defendants are intending to amend their written statement by including the counter claim. Therefore, this Court has carefully perused the relevant provision relating to the counter claim. Order VIII rule 6(a) of CPC deals with the counter claim it reads as under:- 6A. Counter-claim by defendant. 9. On careful perusal of the proposed amendment it prima facie appears that the defendants are intending to amend their written statement by including the counter claim. Therefore, this Court has carefully perused the relevant provision relating to the counter claim. Order VIII rule 6(a) of CPC deals with the counter claim it reads as under:- 6A. Counter-claim by defendant. (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. whether such counter- claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. (3) 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 counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. 10. From the reading of the above provision it clears that counter claim can be filed even after filing of written statement, but before framing of issues and recording of evidence. Further it clears that the counter claim cannot be permitted to file after commencement of recording of evidence. In the present suit issues are framed on 27.07.2022. The plaintiff himself examined as Pw.l on 30.09.2022 and now case is set down for further chief- examination of PW.1. At this stage the defendants have filed this application and intended to introduce the counter claim at the first time when the matter is set down for further chief-examination of PW.1. As per the above provision it cannot be permitted to file amendment application after issues are framed The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Singh & Ors. At this stage the defendants have filed this application and intended to introduce the counter claim at the first time when the matter is set down for further chief-examination of PW.1. As per the above provision it cannot be permitted to file amendment application after issues are framed The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2007 SC 10 has held at para No.15 as under. "A counter-claim, no doubt, could be filed even after the written statement is filed, but that does not mean that a counter-claim can be raised after issues are framed and the evidence is closed. Therefore, the entertaining of the so called counter-claim of defendants 3 to 17 by the trial court, after the framing of issues for trial, was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction." 11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above reported judgment, the counter claim cannot be permitted to file after issues have been framed. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the application filed by the defendants is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, this court has answered point No.1 in the Negative. 12. POINT No.2: In view of the answer to point No.1, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The interlocutory application No. IV filed by the defendants under order VI Rule 17 R/w. Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.” 5. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is in consonance and conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing Cdr Surendra Agnihotri , (2020) 2 SCC 394 , wherein it is held that even under exceptional circumstances, the outer limit for putting forth/introducing a counter claim is before commencement of evidence. In the instant case, undisputedly, the respondent-plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff (PW1), the present application having been filed, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application by passing the impugned order. 6. In the instant case, undisputedly, the respondent-plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff (PW1), the present application having been filed, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application by passing the impugned order. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. /b>. (2015) 5 SCC 423 , K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors. /b>. AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya , (2022) 10 SCC 477 . 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.