- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28742-DB COMAP No. 262 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. M/S ESA IMPEX A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 141/3 ABRAR CHAMBERS, LALBAGH ROAD BENGALURU - 560027 ALSO AT NO. 45, 1ST MAIN, DEEPANJALI NAGAR OFF MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU 560039 2. MR C A MOHIDIN MUNAWAR S/O C M ABBU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 3. MR C M SHAHUD MOAZAM S/O C A MOHIDIN MUNAWAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 4. MR C M FAIQ ASRAR S/O C A MOHIDIN MUNAWAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28742-DB COMAP No. 262 of 2026 5. MRS C A ALEEMA SAMIYA D/O MOHAMMED AKTHER AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SKANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.D.RAGHUNATH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR SHYAM GABA S/O LATE FATHICHAND G GABA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. MR SANJAY KUMAR GABA S/O LATE FATHICHAND G GABA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BOTH R/AT NO. 47, 'CHANDRAKRUPA' 5TH BLOCK, SERPENTINE RAOD KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU - 560020 …RESPONDENTS THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN COMM.O.S.NO.615/2022 BY LXXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-89) DATED.14.10.2024 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS BY DECREEING THE COUNTER CLAIM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28742-DB COMAP No. 262 of 2026 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants have filed the above captioned appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2024 passed by the learned LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru [Commercial Court] in Com.O.S.No.615/2022. 2. The respondents filed the said suit seeking ejectment of the appellants from the suit property bearing Corporation No.45, PID No.41-22-45 situated at Deepanajalinagar Layout off Mysuru Road, Galianjaneya Temple Division, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and the building constructed on the site measuring 6,500 square feet. The respondents also claimed a decree of `44,73,688/-, which includes arrears of rent, damages, goods and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28742-DB COMAP No. 262 of 2026 service tax together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on `36,25,884/-. Additionally, the respondents had also sought mesne profits of `2,50,000/- per month for use and occupation of the schedule property from the date of the suit till delivery of possession. 3. It is the appellants' case that they had paid excess rent for a certain period as the same was computed on the basis that the suit property measured 6,000 square feet. According to the appellants, the same measured only 4,849 square feet. 4. The learned Commercial Court noted that during the course of the proceedings, the appellants had handed over possession of the suit property. After examining the evidence, the learned Commercial Court found that the appellants would be liable to pay a sum of `36,25,884/- towards arrears of rent from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022; damages of `1,65,376/- from 01.03.2022 to 31.03.2022; and `6,82,428/- towards GST. The learned Commercial Court also passed a decree for mesne profits at the rate of `2,00,000/- per month from the date of the suit till 21.04.2023 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28742-DB COMAP No. 262 of 2026 5. The present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 471 days. The explanation furnished is that delay was on account that the parties were trying to resolve the disputes amicably. It is stated that the parties were in touch and had held several meetings. The last meeting was held on 30.09.2025. It is also stated that appellant No.2 was undergoing treatment in a hospital from 06.10.2025 to 11.10.2025 and therefore, he could not notice the delay. 6. Plainly the period of limitation cannot be extended because the parties were trying to resolve their disputes. Thus, even if it is accepted that the appellants were in touch with the respondents and they were attempting to amicably resolve the disputes, the same did not prevent the appellants from filing the present appeal within the stipulated period. It would not be apposite to condone the delay of 471 days in matters involving commercial disputes, having regard to the legislative, intent and object of establishing commercial courts to provide for speedy disposal and for their early resolution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28742-DB COMAP No. 262 of 2026 7. In the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented By Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.1, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “53. …The question still arises as to the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals which are governed by a uniform 60-day period of limitation. At one extreme, we have the judgment in N.V. International which does not allow condonation of delay beyond 30 days, and at the other extreme, we have an open-ended provision in which any amount of delay can be condoned, provided sufficient cause is shown. It is between these two extremes that we have to steer a middle course. *** *** *** *** 58. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of disputes, the expression “sufficient cause” is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression “sufficient cause” is not itself a loose panacea for the ill pressing negligent and stale claims. *** *** *** *** 63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of 1 (2021) 6 SCC 460 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28742-DB COMAP No. 262 of 2026 exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches." 8. In view of the above, the present application—I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11