Dismissed¶52

Chandrashekhar S v. Lingaiah Setty B v

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2025COMAP/391/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench, COMAP No. 391 of 2025, decided 11.08.2025 (Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice; C M Joshi, J). Appeal under Section 13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act against rejection of Order IX Rule 13 CPC application to set aside ex-parte decree dated 30.05.2024 in O.S.No.422/2024 (Commercial Court, Bengaluru CCH-86). Condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 refused; service by RPAD with acknowledgment held proved; no acceptable explanation for delay; appeal dismissed. Keywords: ex-parte decree, condonation of delay, Order IX Rule 13 CPC, RPAD service, commercial courts.

What did the court decide?

The appellants had in fact been duly served with the summons in O.S.No.422/2024 by RPAD and the acknowledgment was received, but they failed to appear and defend the suit, which consequently came to be decreed ex-parte

Chandrashekhar S Vs Lingaiah Setty B v — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB COMAP No. 391 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

CHANDRASHEKHAR S, S/O SREEKANTA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶11

SMT. C.VASUNDRA DEVI, W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR.S, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶12

KARTHIKESH.N.C, S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR.S., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT: NO.70, 2^ND FLOOR, ARYA NAGARA, 4^TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BENGALURU-78.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI HATTARAKIHAL PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

LINGAIAH SETTY B V, S/O LATE K.B. VARADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS.

¶19

SMT. B.L.PRABHAVATHAMMA, W/O LINGAIAH SETTY.B.V,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB COMAP No. 391 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

¶23

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.62, G1-001, C.R. CLASSIC, 7^TH MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, RBI LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 7^TH PHASE, BENGALURU-78.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI PRAVEEN M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2)

¶26

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.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶31

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning

¶32

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

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB COMAP No. 391 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

dated 30.05.2024 passed in O.S.No.422/2024 of the

¶36

respondents.

¶37

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.

¶38

The learned Commercial Court found no merit in the

¶39

said explanation in as much as the appellants had been duly served with the summons (in OS.No.422/2024) by

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB COMAP No. 391 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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 .

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:30946-DB COMAP No. 391 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

appearing before Court and defending the suit after the

¶50

summons were duly served on them.

¶51