- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010025242022 NC: 2026:KHC:38334 W.P. No.1201/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1201/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GAUTAM GHOSH S/O BIJITENDRA NATH GHOSH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT HONEBORG ALLE 23 1472, FJELLHOMAL, NORWAY. ALSO AT “VILLA MALPE” DOOR NO. 1-121/1, THOTTAM UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY HIS P.A. HOLDER MR. CHANDAN RAM S/O SRI. BHEEM RAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 1-121/1 P.O BADANIDIYOOR 576106 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT/ …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREYAS S, ADV., FOR SRI. BRIJESH KALAPPA, ADV.,) AND: JAYARAJ SHETTY S/O LATE B. VASU SHETTY AGED 52 YEARS PROP: SRUSTI ENGINEERS “CHANDRAMA”, DOOR No.16-58B OPP. NO.84, ANANTHANAGAR P.O MANIPAL 576104. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010025242022 NC: 2026:KHC:38334 W.P. No.1201/2022 (BY SRI. AJIT ANAND SHETTY, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.16.4.2021 ON IA NO.IV TO VI IN COM O.S.NO.1/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UDUPI WHICH ORDER IS CONTAINED IN THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET OF THE SAID SUIT VIDE ANENXURE-J TO THE W.P. & 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 petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.04.2021 passed on IA.Nos.4 to 6 in Com.OS.No.1/2020 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (for short ‘the Commercial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Shreyas S., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Brijesh Kalappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Ajit Anand Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010025242022 NC: 2026:KHC:38334 W.P. No.1201/2022 3. The respondent filed a suit in OS.No.111/2017 against the petitioner herein seeking a judgment and decree for recovery of a sum with interest. Later, the suit was transferred to the Commercial Court and re-numbered as Com.O.S.No.279/2019 and thereafter, the suit was re-numbered as Com.OS.No.1/2020. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed applications in IA.Nos.4 to 6 seeking permission to file the Statement of Truth, amendment of the plaint and a direction to the defendant to file his Statement of Admissions. The Commercial Court allowed all the said applications. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved only insofar as IA.No.5, seeking amendment of the plaint is concerned. 4. It is to be noticed that the application for amendment was filed by the plaintiff in the aforesaid commercial suit at the initial stage of the proceedings, even before the commencement of trial. The proposed - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010025242022 NC: 2026:KHC:38334 W.P. No.1201/2022 amendment sought indicates that the plaintiff intends to elaborate its reason for claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Commercial Court, considering the aforesaid aspects has assigned reasons that the plaintiff has to explain the reason for his claim of either principal or the interest, and mere inserting the plea or an explanation would not cause any type of injustice to the other side. I do not find any error in the observations of the Commercial Court. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) contemplates interest at the rate of 6% per annum and any claim for a higher rate, the plaintiff is required to prove the same. In my considered view the said contention needs acceptance. Mere allowing the application for amendment to elaborate the reason for seeking 18% interest does not amount to decreeing the suit for 18% interest. Hence, for the aforementioned - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010025242022 NC: 2026:KHC:38334 W.P. No.1201/2022 reasons, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23