- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4097 WP No. 37560 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 37560 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S VISHWA BUILDERS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS REPRESENTED BY PLAINTIFFS HEREIN NAMELY SRI. S. S. VISHWANATH, S/O LATE S.D. SHIVAJI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SRI. S.S. GOVERDHAN S/O LATE S.D. SHIVAJI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 3. SRI S. S. SOMANATH S/O LATE S.D. SHIVAJI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 4. SRI S. S. JANARDHAN S/O LATE S. D. SHIVAJI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PETITIONER NOs. 1 TO 4 HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 8, 2ND CROSS, 6TH MAIN, GANDHINAGARA BENGALURU – 560 009. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANAGHA J. PRAKASH, FOR SRI. S. V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4097 WP No. 37560 of 2025 AND: M/S PRAVEEN CARGO A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPREITOR, SRI. KUZHANDAIVEL @ B. KOLANDAIVEL HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT: SHOP NO.4, GROUND FLOOR, PROPERTY NO.10, 3RD CROSS, KUMARGUNDI ROAD, NEW KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 002. ALSO AT: NO. 12, RAJANNA STREET, NAGARPET, BENGALURU – 560 002. ALSO AT: NO. 258. PILLAIYAR KOVIL STREET, KAPPIYAMPULLUR, VILUPPURAM, TAMIL NADU – 605 601. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2025 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT COMPLEX, AT BENGALURU (CCH-83), IN COM. O.S. NO.190/2025, ALLOWING I.A. NO. 2 UNDER SECTION 151, CPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4097 WP No. 37560 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiffs in Com.O.S.No.190/2025 on the file of the Commercial Court is directed against the impugned order dated 05.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.2, whereby the said application filed by the respondent-defendant under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file the written statement was allowed by the Commercial Court by holding as under: “Orders on I.A.No.2 The Counsel for the Defendant has filed I.A.No.2 under Section 151 of CPC, seeking a permission to Defendant to file the written statement in the interest of justice and equity. In the accompanying affidavit, it is stated that the defendant appeared before CCH-84 IN Com.O.S.No.191/2025, he came to know about the suit, he seeking permission to file the written statement and they have a good case on merits and if they are not permitted the Defendant to file their written statement. Per contra, the defendant has filed detailed objection stated that, the application is barred by limitation. The service of summons to the Defendant was held sufficient on 05.03.2025 and the plaintiff has instituted the suit against Defendant in Com.O.S.No.191/2025 before CCH-84, concerning a different commercial property bearing Shop - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4097 WP No. 37560 of 2025 No.5, which is also in illegal occupation of the Defendant. On 05.03.2025, the suit was listed for hearing and the counsel for the Defendant entered appearance by filing their vakalath in the suit on the same day, the counsel for Defendant entered appearance by filing their vakalath in the suit on the same day, the counsel for Defendant was made aware of the proceedings before this court and despite the fact that they were aware of the proceedings before this court. The period prescribed of 120 days under the Amendment to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has expired. Hence, application is not maintainable. Accordingly, the plaintiff relied the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in MANU/SC/0227/2019 between SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and others. I have heard both sides and perused the order sheet carefully, wherein the summons were returned with the shara refused by the office of the defendant and both the addresses. Therefore, this court has held the service sufficient, and on 05.03.2025 and 19.03.2025, the defendant was placed exparte. However, the summons were refused y the defendant’s office, and this was not mentioned. The defendant contends that he came to know about the suit when he appeared before Hon’ble CCH-84 in Com.O.S.No.191/2025, as the plaintiff had filed a suit against him. This fact of the filing of the suit in Com.O.S.No.191/2025 and the defendant’s knowledge about the present suit was not denied by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant appeared through his counsel on 26.06.2025 and filed I.A.No.1 under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4097 WP No. 37560 of 2025 151 of CPC. The said application was allowed on 01.08.2025. After the allowing of I.A.No.1 and the exparte order being set aside, the defendant filed the written statement on 11.08.2025 along with this application. The date of service of summons, as per the shara, shows that the office of the defendant refused to receive the summons. However the sara does not reveal whether the defendant himself refused to receive the summons. Therefore, the service of summons was deemed sufficient when the defendant came to know about the suit upon appearing in Com.O.S.No.191/2025 and he appeared through his counsel on 26.06.2025. Accordingly, the date of filing the written statement can be calculated form 26.06.2025. The defendant filed a written statement along with I.A.No.2 on 11.08.2025. Therefore, the defendant has made out a ground that I.A.No.1 was allowed on 01.08.2025 and accordingly, the defendant filed the written statement on 11.08.2025. Therefore, the written statement filed by the defendant is well within 120 days. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff is entirely different, as the defendant has filed the written statement well within 120 days. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant under Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. Written Statement of defendant is taken on record. For Inspection of documents and Statements of Admissions and Denials by 15.11.2025.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4097 WP No. 37560 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 3. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Commercial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record and has recorded the correct finding that the written statement sought to be filed by the respondent within the prescribed period of 120 days, which is permissible in law and that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SCG Contracts India Private Limited Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and others – MANU/SC/0227/2019 was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 4. Upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4097 WP No. 37560 of 2025 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38