Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6404 (KAR)

M/S SUNDEW PROPERTIES, v. SRI RONAK R.,

WP/8979/2026 · 2026-04-24

H T Narendra Prasad

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22955 WP No. 8979 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8979 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SUNDEW PROPERTIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.29, S N COMPLEX, 14TH MAIN ROAD, E BLOCK EXTN. SAHAKARNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS. 1. SRI. S. DEVENDRA, SON OF S VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SRI. H.R. SURESH, SON OF H K RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT.SUSHEELA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESHA T R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RONAK R., S/O LATE T K RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22955 WP No. 8979 of 2026 2. SRI. R. DARSHAN, S/O LATE T.K. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.899/90, 'MARUTHI NILAYA', MARUTHI NAGAR, KOGILU ROAD, YELAHANKA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 064. ALSO AT. NO. 28, 2ND FLOOR, GALAXY ENCLAVE, JAKKUR PLANTATION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 064. 3. M/S. SOBHA LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE AT 'SOBHA', NO.51/5, SARJAPURA MARTHAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD (ORR), DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 103. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. MR. N. B. ASHOK KUMAR. REGD. UNDER PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANDRA CHOODA R.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.09.2025 PASSED ON 1.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.588/2023, ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22955 WP No. 8979 of 2026 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners/defendants called in question the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.588/2023 on IA No.3 filed by the defendant under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.588/2023 for specific performance. On appearance, defendants have filed I.A.No.3 contending that, there is an arbitration - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22955 WP No. 8979 of 2026 clause in that agreement, therefore, under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, suit is not maintainable. On the basis of I.A.No.3, the impugned order has been passed. The suit is dismissed reserving liberty to exhaust remedy before Arbitral Tribunal. 4. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The trial Court has not given any reason or any explanation, whether that arbitration clause mentioned in that agreement is applicable to the facts of the case. On the short ground, the writ petition has to be allowed, remitting the matter back to the trial Court to reconsider that application filed by the defendant on I.A.No.3 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both parties. 5. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22955 WP No. 8979 of 2026 b) The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.588/2023, is set aside. The suit is restored to its original file. c) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the application I.A.No.3 as expeditiously as possible but not later than the end of June, 2026. d) When the matter is posted for consideration of application, the plaintiff without taking any adjournment has to go on with that matter. e) The trial Court is directed to consider the application I.A.No.3 in accordance with law, without influencing any observation made by the plaintiff. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10