- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15823-DB WP No. 8679 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 8679 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S GARDEN CITY SERVICE STATION A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 43/1, 45/2, AND 45/3, OF BANASWADI VILLAGE KRISHNARAJPURA HOBLI LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU -560014. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.SIDDIQ PASHA S/O MEHBOOB PASHA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI T R SAINATH S/O. SRI. T.S. RAJAGOPAL SETTY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2. SMT. T. SUNITHA SAINATH, W/O. SRI. T.R. SAINATH, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15823-DB WP No. 8679 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, BOTH OF THEM RESIDING AT NO. 13, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560018. ALSO AT NO. 82, SAI ARCADE, GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. 3. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 28, 1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. 4. SRI. ARUN KUMAR, SPECIAL BAILIFF, PRL. CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU -560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2026 ONE PASSED BY THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN COM. EX. PET. 1405/2026 WHICH IS PART OF THE ORDER SHEET FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15823-DB WP No. 8679 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The present petition is listed before this Court pursuant to an order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge on an assumption that this Court had directed that the demised premises be handed over to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in COMAP No.526/2025. This Court had passed no such order in COMAP No.526/2025. In fact, COMAP No.526/2025 was dismissed for non compliance of office objections and an application to restore the same is pending. 2. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid petition impugning an order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court [LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru] in Com.Ex.No.1405/2025. The petitioner also prays that the execution proceedings be stayed. 3. The execution proceedings are for the enforcement of a judgment and decree rendered by the learned Commercial Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15823-DB WP No. 8679 of 2026 in Com. O.S. No.1503/2024. The said suit was instituted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against respondent No.3 seeking eviction from the demised premises. Respondent No.3, Indian Oil Corporation Limited [IOCL], who is admittedly the lessee of the demised premises, was directed to hand over the physical possession of the suit property, described as under: "All that piece and parcel of property bearing Site No.1, Khatha No.365, Site No.2, Katha No.366, Site No.3, Katha No.367, Site No.4 and 5, Katha No.368 & 369, Site No.6 and 7, Katha No.370 and 371 (Formed in Survey No.43/1, 45/2 and 45/3 of Banaswadi Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk) situated at Muninanjappa Layout, Ramamurthy Nagar, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of City Municipal Council, Krishnarajapuram, measuring East to West 130 feet and North to South 110 feet in all measuring 14300 sq.ft and which is bounded on; East by : Road; West by: Road; North by: Road; South by: Road." 4. Concededly, the petitioner does not have any independent right against the landlord, in respect of the demised premises. It is occupying the premises as a licensee of IOCL, which is a lessee in respect of the said premises. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15823-DB WP No. 8679 of 2026 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was operating a retail outlet for IOCL and his stocks are lying in the said premises. Since the petitioner has no right to continue occupying the demised premises, we find no grounds to interdict the execution proceedings. 6. We also note that no appeal lies against the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court. The provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [CC Act] specifically restrict the appellate remedies under Section 13 of the Act to orders specified under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC]. This cannot be construed as granting the parties an unfettered right to avail of a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The extraordinary remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not a substitute for an appellate remedy. It would frustrate the legislative intent of restricting appeals in matters involving commercial disputes if this court entertains a writ petition challenging orders passed by Commercial courts, against which an appeal does not lie under Section 13 of the CC Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15823-DB WP No. 8679 of 2026 7. The present petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. 8. All pending applications are also disposed of. SD/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34