- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37875 WP No. 28245 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 28245 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. ARSHID HUSSAIN, S/O MR. AKBAR ALI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 9, JERMIAH ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. RUPESH KHOLAY, S/O MR.H.C.KHOLAY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. MRS. ANITHA KHOLAY, W/O MR. RUPESH KHOLAY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37875 WP No. 28245 of 2025 BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 2089, 16TH ‘C’ MAIN ROAD, H.A.L. 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. FREUD RICHARDSON, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2025, PASSED BY THE LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, (CCH-86) BENGALURU, ON THE MEMO DATED 09.09.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DEFENDANT, IN COM. O.S. NO. 1165/2024, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, BENGALURU URBAN TO PRODUCE RECORDS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN PIM. NO. 403/2024 FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37875 WP No. 28245 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, (CCH-86) Bengaluru, on the memo dated 09.09.2025 filed by the Petitioner- Defendant, in Com. O.S. No. 1165/2024, produced at Annexure-A, and consequently direct the office of District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Urban to produce records before the Trial Court in PIM. No. 403/2024 for appropriate orders. b) Grant such other relief or reliefs, as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case." 2. Heard Sri.Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Freud Richardson, appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner is the tenant-the defendant, the respondents-plaintiffs are the land owners. The two are before the Commercial Court in a Com.O.S.No.1165/2024 instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The suit is instituted on 31.08.2024 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37875 WP No. 28245 of 2025 the suit has progressed. During the progression of the suit, it transpires that the petitioner-the defendant files a memo seeking production of documents. The documents that the petitioner wants to be placed before the concerned Court for evidence is the records obtaining in pre-institution mediation proceedings in PIM No.403/2024. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that suit has progressed to a large extent and it is open to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as is available in law before the appropriate Fora. It is therefore the petitioner is at the doors of this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the contentions advanced in the application before the concerned Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- caveator would submit that the suit is at an advanced stage where evidence also is completed and the arguments are on. At that point in time, a memo for production of documents concerning the PIM is preferred. He would further submit that it is an admitted fact that at least two or three rounds of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37875 WP No. 28245 of 2025 mediation did take place during the pendency of the proceedings in the Commercial OS. Therefore, there is no warrant of getting the records of a PIM which has happened anterior to the institution of the suit itself. He would submit that there is no deposition at the time of evidence with regard to no notice being served at the time of the pre-institution mediation, be that as it may. The concerned Court by the following order has rejected the Memo. "ORDERS ON MEMO At the stage of arguments of the defendant and reply the defendant has filed this memo seeking for summoning of the records in PIM No.403/2024 from the office of DLSA Bengaluru Urban to ascertain whether there is issuance of final notice as contemplated under Rule3(3) of Commercial Courts Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement rules 2018.(PIM Rules) 2. The counsel for defendant would submit that as per the said PIM rules notice of mediation must be issued under Rule3(2) and where there is no response received from the opposite party there shall be a final notice issued under Rule3(3). The counsel for defendant would submit that no final notice has been issued and therefore records to be summoned for ascertaining the same from the concerned authority. In reply learned counsel for the plaintiff would orally submit that prior to institution of the suit notice of PIM proceedings was sent by way of email to the defendant at the email address which has been duly delivered and the defendant has not participated in the PIM proceedings and rightly the concerned authority has closed the same as non-starter. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37875 WP No. 28245 of 2025 3. The learned counsel for defendant in support of his contention has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2022) 10 SCC 1 Patil Automation Private Limited and others vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited and has relied upon the observations made in para 64 of the judgment. In para 64 the Hon'ble Apex Court has extracted the procedure to be followed in PIM proceedings. As per rule 3(2) of (PIM Rules) upon filing the PIM application notice to the opposite part either through registered post or through email is to be sent and where the party does not appear on service of notice a final notice under Rule3(3) has to be issued. When the opposite party does not respond even to the service of final notice a non-starter report as per Rule3(4) and (6) has to be issued. It is the strong contention of the defendant counsel that no final notice as contemplated under Rule3(3) is served on the defendant. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that no where in the said rules there is any provision made with regard to the consequences of non-compliance of Rule 3(3) with respect to service of final notice. Moreover this Court is not a appellate authority on the prescribed authority under the PIM rules. If the defendant is aggrieved by non compliance of any of the rules there under it is open for him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. Neither the rules nor any provisions of the Commercial Courts Act contemplates that non-compliance of any PIM rules more particularly Rule3(3) would result in either rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit. Same is also not the observation by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra. Under such circumstances I am of the considered view that no justifiable grounds exists for summoning the records in the PIM proceedings as prayed. Accordingly I pass the following order: ORDER Memo filed by the defendant summoning the records in PIM No.403/2024 from the office of DLSA Bengaluru Urban is rejected. No order as to costs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37875 WP No. 28245 of 2025 For arguments of defendant finally as a last chance and reply of plaintiff by 12.09.2025." 6. Though the reason rendered by the concerned Court may not be plausible, or does not inspire confidence, the issue is during the subsistence of the proceedings, the parties have mediated, not once, twice but thrice. In that light, whether PIM proceedings notice is issued or not to the petitioner, would not be of any avail, as the petitioner-the tenant who is allegedly in due of Rs.1.2 crores to the respondent-landlord, is wanting to drag his feet through the suit by raising this ground. 7. In the light of the aforesaid submission, there is no warrant of interference with the order passed by the concerned Court. The petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4