WP/12886/2025 of SRI. BALASUBRAMANI Vs SMT. JAYAMMA B. @ JAYALAKSHMI RAVIKUMAR on 24 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1086/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli [the Trial Court] have filed the present writ petition calling in question the order dated 20.02.2025, whereby the Trial Court declined to take the counterclaim filed by the petitioners on the ground that the stage for filing the counterclaim was already over and that no application seeking permission had been filed.

HC-KAR

Brief facts

2. The plaintiffs [the respondents] instituted suit O.S.No.1086/2023 seeking cancellation of the registered agreement of sale dated 02.01.2020 executed in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property, along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and from cutting or removing the standing eucalyptus trees.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants, who entered appearance and filed their written statement. The plaintiffs had also sought an order of temporary injunction, which was granted and subsequently confirmed by the Trial Court. The defendants’ application for injunction came to be rejected. On 20.02.2025, learned counsel appearing for the defendants filed counterclaim. The Trial Court, however, recorded that the stage of filing counterclaim was already over and, as no application seeking permission to file the counterclaim had been filed, the Trial Court declined to take the counterclaim on record. The matter was thereafter posted for framing of issues.

HC-KAR

Submissions

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and has resulted in denial of an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their substantive claim by way of counterclaim. Reasons and conclusion

5. The Trial Court, while recording the filing of the counterclaim on 20.02.2025, simply observed that the “stage of filing counterclaim is already over”. It was further recorded that no application had been filed seeking permission to file the counterclaim and, on that basis, the Trial Court held that the counterclaim could not be taken on record. No further reasons have been assigned for arriving at such a conclusion.

6. The Trial Court was required to consider the stage of the suit, the nature of the claim sought to be raised, the relevant provisions governing the counterclaim and the rival contention of the parties before arriving at a conclusion. The order impugned is bereft of reasons.

HC-KAR

7. The order sheet itself indicates that, immediately prior to the filing of the counterclaim, the matter had been posted for framing of issues. Therefore, the question as to whether counterclaim could be received at that stage required consideration by the Trial Court by assigning appropriate reasons.

8. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim sought to be raised by the petitioners, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in O.S.No.1086/2023 is set aside. iii. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to all the concerned parties and passing a reasoned and speaking order. iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the counterclaim and

HC-KAR

the Trial Court shall consider the same independently in accordance with law.

Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18