- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9262 WP No. 16591 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 16591 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. VIHAN HEALTH CARE 401 AND 402 AT PLOT NO. A-5, SURYAVANSHI PEARL, CHOUMU HOUSE, SARDAR PATEL MARG C-SCHEME JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN - 302001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MARKETING ASSOCIATE SRI. PREET HANUMANDAS TANWAR ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. VETOGEN ANIMAL HEALTH LLP 164, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, AECS LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S FINANCIAL MANAGER ...RESPONDENT (BY MISS ANNIE ANUJA KULLU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANIL KUMAR A., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR SETTING ASIDE ORDERS DATED 29.04.2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, DISMISSING I.A NO. 2 IN COM.O.S NO.176/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-88) AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE PLAINT IN COM.O.S NO.176/2024 IN PART, ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-88) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9262 WP No. 16591 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in Com.O.S.No.176/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the commercial court, whereby the application I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit of the respondent - plaintiff was dismissed by the commercial court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.90,01,832/- together with interest and other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendant, the defendant filed the instant application I.A.No.2 invoking Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and sought for dismissal of the suit on the basis of an alleged admission said to have been made by the plaintiff. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the commercial court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9262 WP No. 16591 of 2025 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will clearly indicate that the commercial court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated not only the material on record comprising of the pleadings and evidence of the parties but has also considered the provisions contained in Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in order to come to the conclusion that before the said provision can be invoked, it is absolutely essential and necessary that the alleged admission of the plaintiff should be clear, definite, certain, unequivocal, unambiguous etc., so as to attract the said provisions, thereby leading to dismissal of the suit without permitting the parties to establish their respective claims after recording evidence. The commercial court took note of the fact that the alleged admissions relied upon by the petitioner do not satisfy or fulfill the said parameters and consequently, petitioner was not entitled to invoke the said provisions contained in Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and seek dismissal of the suit. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the commercial court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by passing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9262 WP No. 16591 of 2025 the impugned order which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 5. Upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the commercial court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law bearing in mind the timelines prescribed in the Commercial Courts Act. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMA/SRL