- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16478 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MS UMME SALMA D/O. USMAN JAFFAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT- NO. 20309 BHARTIYA CITY NIKOO HOME 1, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 064 2. MRS. MUNAWAR SALTANA W/O. MR. USMAN JAFFAR SHARIFF MAJOR R/AT- NO.20309, BHARTIYA CITY NIKOO HOME 1, THANISANDRAMAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 064 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED NASEERUDDIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SURBHI AGARWAL W/O. SRI MOHIT GOEL AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT- NO. E1202, PURVA HIGHLANDS HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD OFF KANKAPURA ROAD MALLASANDRA BANGALORE-560 062 2. SRI MOHIT GOEL S/O SRI VIJAY KUMAR GOEL Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT- NO. E1202, PURVA HIGHLANDS HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD OFF KANKAPURA ROAD MALLASANDRA BANGALORE-560 062 3. M/S. TANZANITE REALTY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SYED AHMED HUSSAIN, S/O MR. SYED AHMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NEW NO. 1, 4 CROSS, THIMMAIAH GARDEN, R T NAGAR BANGALORE -560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRIYANKA S. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.GURUPRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND/OR EXERCISE ITS SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COM.O.S.NO.756/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-87). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2026 in I.A.No.3 in Com.O.S.No.756/2025 by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court had rejected the application, the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed Com.O.S.No.756/2025 seeking inter alia, recovery of possession/ejectment of the petitioners from the residential apartment bearing Flat No.20309, Tower-2, Wing – B, Bharatiya City Nikoo Homes, Thanisandra Main Road, Bengaluru, together with damages, mesne profits and consequential reliefs. In the plaint, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had contended that the petitioners are strangers to the suit schedule property and are in unauthorized occupation thereof and they have denied the existence of any valid tenancy, lease or contractual relationship between themselves and the petitioners. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have further alleged that defendant No.3, a real estate brokerage concern, had entered into a Reality Brokerage Services Agreement dated 14.09.2023 with them for the limited purpose of identifying - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 prospective tenants and that defendant No.3 had unlawfully placed the petitioners in possession of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the dispute does not fall within the ambit of commercial disputes. 3. The petitioners had filed I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute was not a commercial dispute and that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Commercial Court had rejected I.A.No.II holding that the dispute would fall under Section 2(1)(c)(x) and Section 2(1)(c)(xxi) of the Commercial Courts Act on the ground that the dispute arose out of a brokerage/consultancy arrangement involving defendant No.3. Then the petitioners had filed I.A.No.3 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and I.A.No.4 under Section 151 of CPC to recall and reopen the previous stage and permission to file their written statement. The petitioners had also tendered their written statement along with the applications. The Commercial Court had rejected the applications by order impugned. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 4. When the matter came up before the Commercial Court on 05.03.2026, the Commercial Court had observed that the defendant has not filed written statement and on the other hand, sufficient time already been granted. The reasons assigned in the memorandum of facts are not acceptable and therefore, adjournment application is hereby rejected. Therefore, cross-examination of PW.1 is taken as nil. Advocate for plaintiff cited certain decisions and submitted that since the defendant has not filed the written statement and not cross examine the PW.1, there is no need to give them an opportunity to lead the evidence. The Commercial Court observed that in case of Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that if the defendant has not filed written statement or the defense is struck off, the defendant is not entitled to lead evidence of his own and accordingly posted the matter for arguments. While rejecting the applications, the Commercial Court had observed that on 10.09.2025, the defendants appeared before the Court through advocate. The statutory time of 120 days as mandated under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC as applicable to Commercial 1 Manu SC 0283 of 1988 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 Courts is already expired. Therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right to file the written statement. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 are rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal, opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Commercial Court has committed a patent jurisdictional error in assuming jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in respect of a dispute, which on the face of the plaint averments, pertains to possession and recovery of a residential apartment from alleged unauthorized occupants. It is stated that the petitioners had tendered their written statement along with the applications seeking recall and reopening and were ready and willing to contest the matter on merits and the learned Judge failed to appreciate that serious allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents, collusion and unauthorized occupation have been leveled against the petitioners and denial of an opportunity to place their defence on record has resulted in grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel submits that there is no inordinate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 delay in filing the application and the Commercial Court ought to have accepted the written statement and taken it on record. It is submitted that the written statement is not taken by the Court, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Commercial Court had rightly passed the order as the Court has no power to take the written statement on record. He had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others2. Paragraph No.8 reads as follows: “8) The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 23.10.2015 bringing in their wake certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. In Order V, Rule 1, sub-rule (1), for the second proviso, the following proviso was substituted: “Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other days, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall 2 AIR 2019 SC 2691 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 not allow the written statement to be taken on record.” Equally, in Order VIII Rule 1, a new proviso was substituted as follows: “Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.” This was re-emphasized by re-inserting yet another proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which reads as under:- “Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement.” A perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days. However, grace period of a further 90 days is granted which the Court may employ for reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such written statement to come on record. What is of great importance is the fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. This is further buttressed by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 the proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 also adding that the Court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days.” 7. Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that when a party fails to file the written statement within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, the Commercial Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit. After the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn. It is submitted that a written statement has to be filed within a period of thirty days. However, a grace period of 90 days is granted. It is submitted that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant’s right to file the written statement will be forfeited, and the Court shall not allow the written statement. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Graintec Industries and Another arising out of WP.No.34745/2024 dated 04.06.2025. Paragraph No.12 reads as follows: “12. Taking cue from the said observation, the learned counsel for the petitioners putforth the submission that if the defendants have filed an application seeking extension of time before the expiry of 120 days, it should be answered and accepted. The said - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 submission, to say the least, is preposterous. As an illustration, if the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement. Therefore, the submission is noted only to be rejected. The judgment relied upon would not assist to contend that the limitation of 120 days should be extended by a stroke of pen at the hands of this Court. Any other view would be to stretch procedural equity to the point of legislative subversion, qua commercial disputes. In view of the forgoing, this Court finds no legal infirmity, no procedural aberration or any trace of perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merit, stands rejected.” 8. Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that the Commercial Court had rightly passed an order and dismissed the application. 9. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit before the Commercial Court, has come before the Court seeking to have the written statement taken on record. The Commercial Court, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Modula India’s case referred to supra, held that the statutory time of 120 days mandated under Order 9 Rule 1 of the CPC is applicable to the Commercial Courts and has already expired. The defendants cannot be permitted to file their written statement, and the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026 Court has no jurisdiction or authority to allow the same. The petitioner, except for submissions on the merits of the matter, has not made any submissions as to how he is entitled to file a written statement beyond the time stipulated under the CPC. It is the legislative mandate that the written statement has to be filed within 120 days, and there is no discretion vested with Court to condone the delay. The Commercial Court had rightly refused to take the written statement on record. In commercial disputes, for the purpose for which they are constituted, the timeline assumes significance. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Commercial Court had rightly rejected the application, and no interference is called for. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11