Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekhar S vs Lingaiah Setty B V on 11 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB
COMAP No. 391 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRASHEKHAR S,
S/O SREEKANTA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. SMT. C.VASUNDRA DEVI,
W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR.S,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
3. KARTHIKESH.N.C,
S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR.S.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT:
Digitally NO.70, 2ND FLOOR,
signed by
NANDINI R ARYA NAGARA, 4TH CROSS,
Location: J.P. NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
HIGH COURT BENGALURU-78.
OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI HATTARAKIHAL PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LINGAIAH SETTY B V,
S/O LATE K.B. VARADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS.
2. SMT. B.L.PRABHAVATHAMMA,
W/O LINGAIAH SETTY.B.V,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB
COMAP No. 391 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.62,
G1-001, C.R. CLASSIC,
7TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
RBI LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR,
7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-78.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2)
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-86),
BENGALURU IN COM.MISC.NO.88/2024.
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 MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning
an order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned LXXXV
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru
(CCH-86) [Commercial Court] rejecting the appellants'
application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
Procedure [CPC] seeking to set aside judgment and decree
NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB
HC-KAR
dated 30.05.2024 passed in O.S.No.422/2024 of the
respondents.
2. It is material to note that the appellants have
challenged the said judgment and decree in OS
No.422/2024. They have confined the present appeal
challenging the impugned order whereby the appellants'
application for setting aside the judgment and decree
under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was rejected. The
appellants had also filed an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of
more than three months in filing the said application under
Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. The only explanation set out for
the delay was that the appellants were not aware of the
suit and become aware when attachment of assets was
ordered in the execution proceedings.
3. The learned Commercial Court found no merit in the
said explanation in as much as the appellants had been
duly served with the summons (in OS.No.422/2024) by
NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB
HC-KAR
Registered Post Acknowledgment Due [RPAD] and the
office noting indicate that the Acknowledgment was
received. Thus, the appellants had in fact been served with
the summons, but had failed to appear and join the
proceedings. Consequently, the suit [O.S.No.422/2024]
came to be decreed ex-parte.
4. There is no dispute that the appellants had been
served with the summons in the suit but the appellants
have not contested of this noting as incorrect or otherwise
raised a challenge on the service of summons.
5. As rightly observed by the Commercial Court, the
affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation
of delay, is also bereft of any acceptable explanation for
the delay caused.
6. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the
observations of the learned Commercial Court to the effect
the appellants are silent as to what prevented them from
NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB
HC-KAR
appearing before Court and defending the suit after the
summons were duly served on them.
7. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgment. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
NR/-
