- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44868-DB COMAP No. 392 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S KOTHARI INTERNATIONAL SY.NO. 13/6, BARGENAHALLI VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI, DOBASPET NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562 111 HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.92 2ND MAIN ROAD SHESHADRIPURA BENGALURU - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PRADEEP KOTHARI S/O. GOUTHAM CHAND KOTHARI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS …APPELLANT (BY SMT. NAGANANDINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JAIRAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. UNIVERSAL BEVERAGES SRI VENKATESHWARA COMPOUND DEVANAHALLI ROAD, NEAR D' CROSS DODDABALLAPUR BENGALURU - 561 203 Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44868-DB COMAP No. 392 of 2025 2. BHARAT KUMAR C. JAIN S/O. CHNADULAL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.307, 17TH 'C' MAIN 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. SMT AMRUTHA W/O. ARAVIND KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.44, 2ND CROSS RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 READ WITH ORDER XLIII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AS AMENDED BY COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU IN COM.OS.NO.736/2022 SO FAR AS PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT AND DISMISSING THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT NO.3 AND PASS JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44868-DB COMAP No. 392 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment in decree dated 16.10.2024 in Com.O.S.No.736/2022. The appellant had filed the afore-mentioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.36,71,041/- for materials supplied along with interest. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellant (plaintiff) and against defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, the suit was dismissed against defendant No.3. 2. The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 193 days. The appellant has also filed an application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The only explanation provided for the said delay is that the appellant was out of station and therefore, was unable to instruct his Advocate to obtain a certified copy of the judgment. It is stated that after returning back from outstation, the appellant had instructed his Advocate to get a certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree, which was then applied for on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44868-DB COMAP No. 392 of 2025 30.11.2024. The same was received on 10.12.2024. The appeal was filed more than six months thereafter on 30.06.2025. The appellant claims that the delay is on account of financial problems and the inability of the appellant to pay the court fee. 3. We are unable to accept the aforesaid explanation. There are no particulars provided by the appellant as to which was the period for which he was out of station. However, even if it is accepted that the appellant was out of station, we are unable to accept that it would have prevented him from giving instructions to the Advocate for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and decree. In so far as the statement that the appellant was "not able to adjust the court fee immediately" and therefore there was a delay in filing the appeal, is also bereft of any particulars. The appellant has not provided a statement of his bank accounts or a statement of his affairs to substantiate that he was unable to pay court fee on account of paucity of funds. 4. It is well-settled that in matters relating to commercial disputes, the Court is not required to be liberal in condoning delays. Delay in filing the appeal can be condoned only if it is established - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44868-DB COMAP No. 392 of 2025 that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal, by sufficient cause. 5. In the present case, the explanation provided by the appellant is unsatisfactory and therefore, the application ‒ I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of the delay ‒ is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as well. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8