- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531082026 NC: 2026:KHC:47670-DB COMAP No. 379 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. M/S GOWRI INFRA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT HAVING REGD. OFFICE AT: NO.1600, 3RD FLOOR, 5TH STAGE BEML SOCIETY HALAGEVADERAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 098 REP. BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR CHANDRA KUMAR T …APPELLANT (BY SRI H.V. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVCHARAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. SUAJAYA JAYAPRASAD W/O JAYAPRASAD SHETTY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. JARA PRASAD SHETTY S/O P.S. THIMMAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 13/14 Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531082026 NC: 2026:KHC:47670-DB COMAP No. 379 of 2026 PRASAD RESIDENCY INCOM TAX LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040 RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 REPRRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRAGATHI GROUP A REGISTERED PRATNERSHIP REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER OF PRAGATHI GROUP MR. G. MANJUNATH RAJU S/O. GANGADHAR RAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT: No.28/2, 2ND FLOOR CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE – 560 052 3. PRATHATHI GROUP A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 28/2 2ND FLOOR CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING PARTNER MR. G. MANJUNATH RAJU S/O GANGADHAR RAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS …RESPONDENTS THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 AND I.A.NO.4 IN COMMERCIAL O.S. NO.231/2025 BY THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (DEDICATED - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531082026 NC: 2026:KHC:47670-DB COMAP No. 379 of 2026 COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, INSOFAR AS IT ALLOWS I.A.NO.1 AND REJECTS I.A.NO.4 & ETC. 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 appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court in Com.OS.No.231/2025 on I.A.No.1 & 4. The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed IA.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] seeking temporary injunction restraining the appellant (defendant), from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party rights in respect of the subject property. An ad interim order was granted on 27.11.2025 and therefore the appellant had filed IA No. 4 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacating the said ex parte ad interim order. 2. The appellant claimed that he had purchased the subject property for a sum of `2,50,00,000/- and had paid `1,95,00,000/- towards renegotiated consideration. According to the appellant, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531082026 NC: 2026:KHC:47670-DB COMAP No. 379 of 2026 only a sum of `55,00,000/- was payable as the balance consideration. However, the documentation recorded the consideration for the subject property at `4,51,97,000/-. Prima facie, there is no dispute that the documents on the basis of which the appellant claims title to the subject property records the consideration for the purchase as `4,51,97,000/-. Even if the appellant's case is accepted that the total consideration for the subject property was reduced to `2,50,00,000/-, it is admitted that the entire consideration for the property which is claimed by the appellant is not discharged. 3. Although the respondent has raised other objections, including limitation, the said issues are yet to be adjudicated and the subject matter of trial. 4. Considering that the appellant had admittedly not paid the entire sale consideration for the subject property, the Commercial Court passed the impugned order restraining the appellants from creating any third party rights in respect to the scheduled property. We are unable to accept that the said order is in disregard of legal principles and warrants interference on the anvil of the tests as laid - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010531082026 NC: 2026:KHC:47670-DB COMAP No. 379 of 2026 down by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd., v. Antox India P. Ltd.1 5. We also note that the present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 107 days and there is no credible reason which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. The only reason provided by the appellant is that there were negotiations with the respondents. Clearly, that did not prevent the appellant from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. 6. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits. 7. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10 1 1990 SCC OnLine SC 490