Karnataka High Court
M/S Taneja Aerospace And Aviation Pvt. ... vs M/S Vsl Mining Company Pvt. Ltd on 11 March, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12350
WP No. 28240 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 28240 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S TANEJA AEROSPACE AND AVIATION PVT. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, AKSHAYA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
26, VICTORIA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 047
REPRESENTED BY V. CHANDRASHEKAR,
JUNIOR SITE ENGINEER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,
NO.12, NTI LAYOUT,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
RMV II STAGE,
DOLLARS COLONY,
BANGALORE - 560 094
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN &
signed by
MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI ANIL H.LAD.
SUMA B N
...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR A.S.,ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
KARNATAKA CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2019, PASSED IN O.S.NO.6908/2008 ON
I.A.NO.6 ON THE FILE OF THE 82nd ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU, AT ANNX-M, AND THEREBY ALLOW
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT UNDER
ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12350
WP No. 28240 of 2019
ORAL ORDER
Present petition is by the defendant in O.S.No.6908/2008 pending consideration on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2019 passed on application in I.A.No.6 (Wrongly shown as I.A.No.1 to 3) by which the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking permission to carry out certain amendment to written statement.
2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for recovery of amount from the petitioner/defendant. Written statement to the said suit is stated to have been filed by the petitioner/defendant in the year 09.04.2009. Issues have been framed, evidence has been recorded and when the matter was set-down for arguments, the present application has been filed. By the said application the petitioner/defendant has sought to incorporate paragraph Nos.12 to 16, as extracted in the impugned order into the written statement. The justification sought to be made for incorporate aforesaid paragraphs is that the same are necessary for the defendants -3- NC: 2025:KHC:12350 WP No. 28240 of 2019 to make set-off against the claim being made by the plaintiff. The Trial Court taking note of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, which bars filing an application for amendment after commencement of the trail, dismissed the application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC submits that the amendment sought for is only to bring on record the amounts and particulars which has resulted in losses to the petitioner/defendant, such that petitioner/defendant can make a counterclaim and seek for set-off. He however submits that the application under said Order 6 Rule 17 is required to be filed seeking amendment in the first instance to written statement, it is only thereafter an application under order 8 Rule 6 is required to be filed, inasmuch as the sum sought to be set-off needs to be ascertained by the Trial Court. Hence, he submits that the Trial Court erred in not permitting the petitioner/defendant to seek the amendment of the written statement.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand justifying the order passed by the Trial Court -4- NC: 2025:KHC:12350 WP No. 28240 of 2019 submits that the application filed for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 was far beyond the period of limitation contemplated under very same provision. He submits that the written statement was filed in the year 2009, an application of this nature was filed in the year 2017, has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court apart from the same effect of change in the nature of the suit. Hence seeks for rejection of the petition.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. From the perusal of the application and the affidavit accompanying the same filed under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of the written statement, what emanates is essentially petitioner/defendant is seeking to place on record the materials seeking set-off against the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. It is appropriate to refer to Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC which reads as under:
''6. Particulars of set-off to be given in written statement.--(1) Where in a suit for the recovery of money the defendant claims to set-off against the plaintiff's demand any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff, not exceeding the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, and both parties fill the same character as they fill in the plaintiff's suit, the defendant may, at the first hearing of the suit, but not afterwards unless permitted by the Court, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:12350 WP No. 28240 of 2019 presents a written statement containing the particulars of the debt sought to be set-off.
(2) Effect of set-off.--The written statement shall have the same effect as a plaint in a cross-suit so as to enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in respect both of the original claim and of the set-off: but this shall not affect the lien, upon the amount decreed, of any pleader in respect of the costs payable to him under the decree.
(3) The rules relating to a written statement by a defendant apply to a written statement in answer to a claim of set-off.''
7. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC makes it clear, if the defendant intends to claim to set-off against the plaintiff's demand is required to place on record the particulars at the first hearing of suit but not afterwards unless permitted by the Court. In view of this, specific provision is provided under the CPC, recourse adopted by defendant in seeking to set-off against the demand made by the plaintiff, by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 is not be tenable, inasmuch as the requirement of consideration of request for set-off contemplated under Section 6 of Order 8 is completely different and distinct from the requirement for consideration of amendment of pleading. Further, the prayer in the affidavit accompanying the application reads as under:
''Wherefore, I pray this hon'ble Court to consider the application of the defendant/company and permit the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:12350 WP No. 28240 of 2019 defendant/company to amend the written statement in order to claim set-of in the interest of justice and equity.''
8. Clearly, what is sought is not the amendment of written statement simplicitor but to place a claim for set-off.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a liberty be reserved to the petitioner to make an application specifically under Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to place plea of set-off.
10. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner to be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law, petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8