Sri. M. Lokesh vs Mr. Rajshekar
2026 Latest Caselaw 2055 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2055 Kant
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. M. Lokesh vs Mr. Rajshekar on 9 March, 2026

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:13999
                                                       WP No. 6669 of 2026


                   HC-KAR




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                            BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 6669 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. M. LOKESH
                   S/O MUNIYAPPA
                   AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS
                   R/AT GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
                   CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
                   DEVANAHALLI TALUK
                   BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M D., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   MR. RAJSHEKAR
                   S/O LATE B.G. CHANDRASHEKAR
Digitally signed   AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
by                 PROPRIETOR OF M/S PURVA CITY GROUP & PROPERTIES
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY             OFFICE AT NO 255, 4TH FLOOR
Location: HIGH
COURTOF            VIJAYALAKSHMI BUGGI SADAN
KARNATAKA
                   GANGANAGAR BENGALURU-560032
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. NATARAJ BALLAL., ADVOCATE FOR
                   SSRI. ARIKESARI K.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)


                        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
                   THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
                   CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR
                   DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED: 10.02.2026
                   PASSED ON IA NO. 1 IN COM.O.S. NO. 286/2025 (ANNEXURE-
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:13999
                                             WP No. 6669 of 2026


HC-KAR




A) BY THE LXXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU 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 petitioner-defendant has

called in question the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by

the LXXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,

on I.A.No.1 filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 10

of CPC and Section 16 of CPC read with Section

2(1)(c)(vii) and 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in

Com.O.S.No.286/2025.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in the

Original Suit.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit in Com.O.S.No.286/2025

before the Trial Court to pass judgment and decree

directing the defendant: (a) to pay the amount of

NC: 2026:KHC:13999

HC-KAR

Rs.6,74,54,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 24%

from 11.02.2022 till realization, to the plaintiff; (b) to

grant any such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit

to grant in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant;

summons, the defendant appeared and filed written

statement. Along with the written statement, the

defendant filed I.A.No.1 under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC

seeking for return of plaint. The Trial Court, by impugned

order dated 10.02.2026, has dismissed the application.

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.02.2026

passed by the Trial Court, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

defendant submits that the present dispute is not a

commercial dispute and it has to be tried as a regular suit.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

plaintiff submits that though Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 may not be applicable, the

NC: 2026:KHC:13999

HC-KAR

dispute would fall within the ambit of Sections 2(1)(c)(vii)

and 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the said Act.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused

the writ papers.

7. The Trial Court has rejected the application, namely

I.A. No.1, only on the ground that the dispute in the suit is

a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Act.

The Trial Court has not considered whether the dispute

would fall within the ambit of Sections 2(1)(c)(vii) or

2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Act. There is no finding recorded on

that aspect. Therefore, the matter requires to be remitted

back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the

application in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) The writ petition is allowed.

NC: 2026:KHC:13999

HC-KAR

b) The impugned order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the LXXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A. No.1 in Com.O.S. No.286/2025 is set aside.

c) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the said application in accordance with law.

d) All the contentions of the parties are left open.

Sd/-

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13