SHANTESH GUREDDI Vs. THAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been placed before this Division Bench for resolving the conflict of opinions expressed by the two learned Single judges of this Court in the cases of Hanumanthasastri Mahadevasastri puranik and Another v Madhava Rao and Others and Smt. Parvathamma v K. R. Lokanath , regarding the stage in a civil suit upto which a defendant can set up a counter-claim against the plaintiff under order 8, Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the cpc' ).

(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 281 of 1993 against the order dated 27-8-1996 by which the Trial Court has rejected I. A. No. 2 filed by him seeking amendment to the written statement purporting to set up an alleged counter-claim on the ground that the same is not permissible since it has been filed after the framing of the issues and commencement of the evidence.

(3.) THE plaintiff (respondent herein) has filed the said suit for redemption of the mortgaged suit property and delivery of possession thereof. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was mortgaged to one b. R. Patil as security for loan of Rs. 15,000/- and possession thereof was delivered to the latter, who in turn, assigned the said mortgage in favour of the petitioner-defendant under a registered assignment deed dated 3-5-1984. The petitioner filed his written statement contesting the suit raising the defence to the effect that he is in occupation of the suit property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and that the mortgage transaction in favour of the said B. R. Patil and assignment of the mortgage by the latter in defendant's favour under the registered assignment deed were all sham transactions entered into between the parties merely to circumvent the restrictions and rigours of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Thereafter, on 27-6-1994, at an advanced stage of the suit proceedings, when plaintiffs evidence was in progress, petitioner-defendant made LA. No. 2 purporting to be under order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of written statement to set up counter-claim for a decree against respondent-plaintiff to declare that the defendant is a tenant of the schedule premises under the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction to prevent him from dispossessing the defendant from the schedule premises except by due process of law and for costs etc.