- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24225 W.P. No.2938/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2938/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: STANDARD TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTRED ADDRESS AT UNIT II, PLOT NO.32 SHIVALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MANIPAL, UDUPI DIST 576104 REP. HERE IN BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. SADANANDA .B …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHILASH VAIDYANATHAN, ADV.,) AND: KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED TRANSMISSION ZONE PRASARANA BHAVAN FTS COMPOUND, N.R. MOHALLA MYSORE 570007 REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIRUDHA, ADV., FOR SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24225 W.P. No.2938/2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 07.01.2022 PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT AND II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, IN COM.O.S.NO.66/2021, REJECTING I.A.NO.6 (ANNX-A). CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. NO.6 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PLACE ITS WRITTEN STATEMENT ON RECORD BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL COURT AND II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU (ANNX-D) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2022 passed on I.A.No.6 in Com.O.S.No.66/2021 by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court & II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short, 'the Commercial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.Abhilash Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and Sri.Anirudha, learned counsel for Sri.Shirish Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24225 W.P. No.2938/2022 3. The petitioner, who is the defendant in Com.O.S.No.66/2021, has filed IA No.6 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking permission to file the written statement; the said application was accompanied with the written statement. The said application came to be rejected by the Commercial Court under the impugned order on the ground that filing of the written statement is beyond the period of limitation. 4. It is to be noticed that the respondent herein has filed Com.O.S.No.66/2021 for recovery of money. As per the order sheet of the Commercial Court dated 26.05.2021, the suit summons was served on the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance before the Commercial Court on 17.08.2021 and thereafter the Commercial Court vide order dated 16.11.2021 has recorded that the written statement is not filed. The petitioner-defendant filed an application on 06.01.2022 along with the written statement seeking permission of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24225 W.P. No.2938/2022 Court to accept the written statement; the said application came to be rejected by the Commercial Court on 07.01.2022, which was impugned herein. 5. It is to be noticed that the aforesaid proceedings and events referred supra have taken place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, IN RE1 in suo moto proceedings, vide order dated 10.01.2022, has held that the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for all the purposes. The said order also makes it clear that notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 and in the event, the actual balance period of limitation remaining with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRAKASH CORPORATES 1 (2022) 3 SCC 117 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24225 W.P. No.2938/2022 V. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED2 at para Nos.70 and 71 held as under: "70. Having regard to the orders subsequently passed by the 3-Judge Bench of this Court in SMWP No.3 of 2020 (and MA No.665 of 2021 therein), as also having regard to the fundamental difference of facts and the surrounding factors, the said decision in Sagufa Ahmed, in our view, is also of no application to the present case. 71. On behalf of the respondent, much emphasis has been laid on the submission that the appellant was regularly appearing in the Court and, therefore, cannot take advantage of the orders passed in SMWP No.3 of 2020. It is true that the appellant had indeed caused appearance in the Court in response to the summons and sought time for filing its written statement but at the same time, it is also undeniable that at the relevant point of time, the second wave of pandemic was simmering and then, it engulfed the country with rather unexpected intensity and ferocity. Then, on 27-4-2021, this Court restored the operation of the order dated 23-3-2020 in IN SMWP No.3 of 2020. Putting all these factors together, we are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent that because of earlier appearance or prayer for adjournment, the defendant-appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation available under the extraordinary orders passed by this Court." 6. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 180 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24225 W.P. No.2938/2022 dates and events referred supra, I am of the considered view that the Commercial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff in the suit has stated that they have no objection to file the written statement, though they have objected to the writ petition. Be that as it may, the chronology of events referred supra indicate that the closure of right to file the written statement was during the period saved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and later filing of the written statement along with an application as well, falls within the aforesaid period. Hence, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. For aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24225 W.P. No.2938/2022 ii. The impugned order dated 07.01.2022 passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.66/2021 by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court & II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, refusing to accept written statement is hereby set aside. Consequently, the Commercial Court shall take the written statement filed by the petitioner herein on record and proceed with the matter. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31