[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
H D Udayshankara Sastry vs M/S Fab Icon Facade Systems Private ... on 26 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17166
WP No. 19374 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 19374 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
H.D. UDAYSHANKARA SASTRY
S/O LATE H.V. DATTATREYA SASTRY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/O NO. 156-156-1506,
'DATTA ARCADE', PARK EXTENSION
SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SUNIL SASTRY H.U.
S/O H.D. UDAYSHANKARA SASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.56, 1ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE
VINOBHANAGARA,
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204.
BAHAR
KHANAM ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
M/S. FAB ICON FACADE SYSTEMS
PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.6, PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17166
WP No. 19374 of 2021
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE
M.R. GYNANENDRA SINGH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SAKAT BISANI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS
DATED 08.10.2021 ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE AND ALSO ON
I.A.NO.3 PASSED BY COURT OF LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN
O.S.NO.566/2018 AS PER ANNEXURES-D AND THEREBY HOLD
THAT THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY HAS NO JURISDICTION
TO TRY THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.5661/2018 AND ORDER TO
RETURN THE PLAINT TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE THE
APPROPRIATE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION AS PRAYED IN
I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 10
OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17166
WP No. 19374 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated
08.10.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 3 in
O.S.No.5661/2018 by XI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Sri.P.N.Harish, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1
seeking to return the plaint on the ground that the Court
has no territorial jurisdiction and no cause of action has
arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. It is
submitted that the plaintiff has filed an application in
I.A.No.3 to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court and
the Trial Court under the impugned order dismissed
I.A.No.1 and allowed I.A.No.3 and transferred the suit to
the Commercial Court. It is submitted that the
respondent's suit for recovery of money is filed in
Bengaluru, however, the petitioner - defendant is residing
at Shivamogga and the entire cause of action to file a suit
NC: 2026:KHC:17166
HC-KAR
for recovery of money arose in Shivamogga. Hence, the
application is filed praying to return the plaint to enable
the plaintiff to re-present before the jurisdictional Court.
It is submitted that the Trial Court under the impugned
order incorrectly recorded the finding that part of cause of
action arose within its jurisdiction. Hence, he seeks to
allow the petition.
3. There was no representation for the respondent -
plaintiff on 19.09.2025, 12.03.2026 and on the present
day as well.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the
material on record.
5. The respondent filed O.S.No.5661/2018 for recovery
of money before the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 under Order
VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to
return the plaint to be presented to the Court, before
which the suit should have been instituted. The said
NC: 2026:KHC:17166
HC-KAR
application was opposed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also
filed an application in I.A.No.3 to transfer the suit to the
Commercial Court. The Trial Court under the impugned
order rejected the I.A.1 for return of the plaint and
allowed I.A.No.3 to transfer the suit to the Commercial
Court, Bengaluru. The affidavit accompanying I.A.No.1
indicates that the defendant is contending that the
Bengaluru Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as no
cause of action has arisen. It is not in dispute that the
defendant - petitioner herein is residing in Shivamogga,
the work in question was carried out at Shivamogga, the
plaintiff company is situated in Bengaluru. The Trial Court
has recorded the reason that the plaintiff has produced
invoice which shows that they have arisen in Bengaluru
and it is not in dispute that the defendant has made part
payment in Bengaluru.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out
that the invoices were sent through email and the money
NC: 2026:KHC:17166
HC-KAR
was transferred through R.T.G.S from Shivamogga to the
respondent.
7. On perusal of the plaint at Paragraph 17, cause of
action to file the suit is shown as on 06.12.2017, when the
plaintiff completed the work in the site and later dates of
cause of action were shown for raising invoices on
22.02.2018. It is to be noticed that the defendant is
residing at Shivamogga, the work in question was carried
out at Shivamogga and payments were also made from
the Bank Accounts of the petitioner to the bank accounts
of the respondent from Shivamogga to Bengaluru. In my
considered view, there is no cause of action that has
arisen to institute the suit at Bengaluru.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I.A.No.1 is allowed.
The Trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the
plaintiff to present before the appropriate Court and the
time to present the plaint is granted upto 30 days from the
date of receipt of copy of order. In view of the aforesaid
order, order on I.A.No.3 is set-aside. Liberty is reserved
NC: 2026:KHC:17166
HC-KAR
to the plaintiff to file such application or present the plaint
before the Commercial Court having the territorial
jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
10. Registry shall communicate this order to the
respondent.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
GH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
