Dismissed¶84

Ms Umme Salma v. Smt. Surbhi Agarwal

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026WP/16478/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Written statement; 120 days; Order 8 Rule 1 CPC; Order VIII Rule 10 CPC; commercial courts; Commercial Courts Act 2015 Section 2(1)(c)(x) and (xxi); forfeiture of right to file written statement; no condonation of delay; recall and reopen; Order XVIII Rule 17; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; Com.O.S.No.756/2025; Commercial Court Bengaluru; Modula India; SCG Contracts India; Imagex Technologies; Karnataka High Court 2026; Lalitha Kanneganti; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed and all I.As. in the petition were directed to stand closed. ¶84

Ms Umme Salma Vs Smt. Surbhi Agarwal — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed and all I.As. in the petition were directed to stand closed.

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Com.O.S.No.756/2025) were entitled to have their written statement taken on record beyond the statutorily mandated 120-day period under the CPC. +1 more

¶82

Court's answer

Filing of the written statement within the mandated period of 120 days is a legislative mandate; no discretion is vested in the court to condone the delay, and beyond 120 days the defendant cannot be permitted to file the written statement; the petitioners made no submission showing entitlement to file beyond the time stipulated under the CPC.

¶82

Ratio / Principle

The Commercial Court had rightly refused to take the written statement on record and had rightly rejected the applications; in commercial disputes the timeline assumes significance; no interference was called for, and the writ petition was dismissed with all I.As. therein closed.

¶82

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Lalitha Kanneganti, J., 11.06.2026) dismisses a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Com.O.S.No.756/2025 (Commercial Court, Bengaluru) challenging the order dated 16.03.2026 rejecting I.A.Nos.3 (Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC) and I.A.No.4 (Section 151 CPC) by which they sought recall/reopening of the previous stage and permission to file their written statement, the same having been tendered along with the applications after the statutory 120-day period had expired. Held: filing of the written statement within 120 days is a legislative mandate admitting of no discretion or condonation; on expiry the right stands forfeited and the court has no authority to take the written statement on record; the petitioners advanced no submission establishing entitlement to file beyond the stipulated time. The Commercial Court had rightly refused to take the written statement on record; in commercial disputes the timeline assumes significance and no interference was called for. Writ petition dismissed; all I.As. closed. Precedents noted: Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo (Manu SC 0283 of 1988); SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2019 SC 2691); Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Graintec Industries (WP No.34745/2024, Kar HC, 04.06.2025).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16478 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MS UMME SALMA

¶11

D/O. USMAN JAFFAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT- NO. 20309 BHARTIYA CITY NIKOO HOME 1, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 064

¶12

MRS. MUNAWAR SALTANA W/O. MR. USMAN JAFFAR SHARIFF MAJOR R/AT- NO.20309, BHARTIYA CITY NIKOO HOME 1, THANISANDRAMAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 064

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. SYED NASEERUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. SURBHI AGARWAL W/O. SRI MOHIT GOEL AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT- NO. E1202, PURVA HIGHLANDS HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD OFF KANKAPURA ROAD MALLASANDRA BANGALORE-560 062

¶18

SRI MOHIT GOEL S/O SRI VIJAY KUMAR GOEL

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT- NO. E1202, PURVA HIGHLANDS HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD OFF KANKAPURA ROAD MALLASANDRA BANGALORE-560 062

¶22

M/S. TANZANITE REALTY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SYED AHMED HUSSAIN, S/O MR. SYED AHMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NEW NO. 1, 4 CROSS, THIMMAIAH GARDEN, R T NAGAR BANGALORE -560 032

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.PRIYANKA S. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.GURUPRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND/OR EXERCISE ITS SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COM.O.S.NO.756/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-87).

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2026 in I.A.No.3 in Com.O.S.No.756/2025 by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court had rejected the application, the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.

¶33

The facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.1

¶34

and 2 had filed Com.O.S.No.756/2025 seeking inter alia, recovery of possession/ejectment of the petitioners from the residential apartment bearing Flat No.20309, Tower-2, Wing – B, Bharatiya City Nikoo Homes, Thanisandra Main Road, Bengaluru, together with damages, mesne profits and consequential reliefs. In the plaint, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had contended that the petitioners are strangers to the suit schedule property and are in unauthorized occupation thereof and they have denied the existence of any valid tenancy, lease or contractual relationship between themselves and the petitioners. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have further alleged that defendant No.3, a real estate brokerage concern, had entered into a Reality Brokerage Services Agreement dated 14.09.2023 with them for the limited purpose of identifying

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

prospective tenants and that defendant No.3 had unlawfully placed the petitioners in possession of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the dispute does not fall within the ambit of commercial disputes.

¶38

The petitioners had filed I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute was not a commercial dispute and that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Commercial Court had rejected I.A.No.II holding that the dispute would fall under Section 2(1)(c)(x) and Section 2(1)(c)(xxi) of the Commercial Courts Act on the ground that the dispute arose out of a brokerage/consultancy arrangement involving defendant No.3. Then the petitioners had filed I.A.No.3 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and I.A.No.4 under Section 151 of CPC to recall and reopen the previous stage and permission to file their written statement. The petitioners had also tendered their written statement along with the applications. The Commercial Court had rejected the applications by order impugned.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

When the matter came up before the Commercial Court on 05.03.2026, the Commercial Court had observed that the defendant has not filed written statement and on the other hand, sufficient time already been granted. The reasons assigned in the memorandum of facts are not acceptable and therefore, adjournment application is hereby rejected. Therefore, cross-examination of PW.1 is taken as nil. Advocate for plaintiff cited certain decisions and submitted that since the defendant has not filed the written statement and not cross examine the PW.1, there is no need to give them an opportunity to lead the evidence. The Commercial Court observed that in case of Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh

¶42

Deo¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that if the defendant has not filed written statement or the defense is struck off, the defendant is not entitled to lead evidence of his own and accordingly posted the matter for arguments. While rejecting the applications, the Commercial Court had observed that on 10.09.2025, the defendants appeared before the Court through advocate. The statutory time of 120 days as mandated under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC as applicable to Commercial

¶43

1 Manu SC 0283 of 1988

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Courts is already expired. Therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right to file the written statement. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 are rejected.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal, opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Commercial Court has committed a patent jurisdictional error in assuming jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in respect of a dispute, which on the face of the plaint averments, pertains to possession and recovery of a residential apartment from alleged unauthorized occupants. It is stated that the petitioners had tendered their written statement along with the applications seeking recall and reopening and were ready and willing to contest the matter on merits and the learned Judge failed to appreciate that serious allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents, collusion and unauthorized occupation have been leveled against the petitioners and denial of an opportunity to place their defence on record has resulted in grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel submits that there is no inordinate

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

delay in filing the application and the Commercial Court ought to have accepted the written statement and taken it on record. It is submitted that the written statement is not taken by the

¶51

Court, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioners.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Commercial Court had rightly passed the order as the Court has no power to take the written statement on record. He had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others² . Paragraph No.8 reads

¶53

as follows:

¶54

“8) The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 23.10.2015 bringing in their wake certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. In Order V, Rule 1, sub-rule (1), for the second proviso, the following proviso was substituted:

¶55

“Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other days, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall

¶56

2 AIR 2019 SC 2691

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

¶60

Equally, in Order VIII Rule 1, a new proviso was substituted as follows:

¶61

“Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

¶62

This was re-emphasized by re-inserting yet another proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which reads as under:-

¶63

“Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.

¶64

Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement.”

¶65

A perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days. However, grace period of a further 90 days is granted which the Court may employ for reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such written statement to come on record. What is of great importance is the fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. This is further buttressed by

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 also adding that the Court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days.”

¶70

Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that when a

¶71

party fails to file the written statement within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, the Commercial Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit. After the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn. It is submitted that a written statement has to be filed within a period of thirty days. However, a grace period of 90 days is granted. It is submitted that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant’s right to file the written statement will be forfeited, and the Court shall not allow the written statement. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Graintec Industries and Another arising out of WP.No.34745/2024 dated 04.06.2025 . Paragraph No.12 reads as follows:

¶72

“12. Taking cue from the said observation, the learned counsel for the petitioners putforth the submission that if the defendants have filed an application seeking extension of time before the expiry of 120 days, it should be answered and accepted. The said

¶73

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

submission, to say the least, is preposterous. As an illustration, if the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement. Therefore, the submission is noted only to be rejected. The judgment relied upon would not assist to contend that the limitation of 120 days should be extended by a stroke of pen at the hands of this Court. Any other view would be to stretch procedural equity to the point of legislative subversion, qua commercial disputes. In view of the forgoing, this Court finds no legal infirmity, no procedural aberration or any trace of perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merit, stands rejected.”

¶76

Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that the

¶77

Commercial Court had rightly passed an order and dismissed the application.

¶78

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit before the Commercial Court, has come before the Court seeking to have the written statement taken on record. The Commercial Court, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Modula India ’s case referred to supra, held that the statutory time of 120 days mandated under Order 9 Rule 1 of the CPC is applicable to the Commercial Courts and has already expired. The defendants cannot be permitted to file their written statement, and the

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:32499 WP No. 16478 of 2026

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Court has no jurisdiction or authority to allow the same. The petitioner, except for submissions on the merits of the matter, has not made any submissions as to how he is entitled to file a written statement beyond the time stipulated under the CPC. It is the legislative mandate that the written statement has to be filed within 120 days, and there is no discretion vested with Court to condone the delay. The Commercial Court had rightly refused to take the written statement on record. In commercial disputes, for the purpose for which they are constituted, the timeline assumes significance. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Commercial Court had rightly rejected the application, and no interference is called for. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶85

ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶86

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶87

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 16.03.2026 in I.A.No.3 in Com.O.S.No.756/2025, by which the Commercial Court rejected I.A.Nos.3 and 4 (filed to recall and reopen the previous stage and for permission to file the written statement, the written statement having been tendered along with the applications).¶32
LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru · 16.03.2026
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed Com.O.S.No.756/2025 before the Commercial Court seeking recovery of possession/ejectment of the petitioners from Flat No.20309, Tower-2, Wing-B, Bharatiya City Nikoo Homes, Thanisandra Main Road, Bengaluru, together with damages, mesne profits and consequential reliefs; they alleged the petitioners were strangers in unauthorized occupation, denied any tenancy/lease, and alleged defendant No.3 (brokerage concern) had placed them in possession pursuant to a Realty Brokerage Services Agreement dated 14.09.2023; it was stated the dispute did not fall within commercial disputes.¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute was not a commercial dispute and the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction; the Commercial Court rejected it, holding the dispute fell under Section 2(1)(c)(x) and Section 2(1)(c)(xxi) of the Commercial Courts Act as arising out of a brokerage/consultancy arrangement involving defendant No.3.¶38
Prior proceeding
Petitioners then filed I.A.No.3 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and I.A.No.4 under Section 151 of CPC to recall and reopen the previous stage and for permission to file their written statement, tendering the written statement along with the applications; the Commercial Court rejected both applications by the impugned order.¶38
Prior proceeding
On 05.03.2026 the Commercial Court observed the defendant had not filed the written statement and sufficient time had been granted; cross-examination of PW.1 was taken as nil and, noting the Supreme Court decision in Modula India (that a defendant who has not filed a written statement is not entitled to lead his own evidence), the matter was posted for arguments.¶41
Prior proceeding
The Commercial Court recorded that the defendants appeared through advocate on 10.09.2025 and that the statutory 120-day period under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC applicable to Commercial Courts had already expired, leaving defendant Nos.1 and 2 no right to file the written statement; I.A.Nos.3 and 4 were accordingly rejected.¶46

Cite this judgement

Ms Umme Salma v. Smt. Surbhi Agarwal, WP/16478/2026 (KA), decided on 11 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited3

Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh DeoReferred¶41
SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and OthersReferred¶52
M/s. Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Graintec Industries and AnotherReferred¶71

Open Authorities

Statutes9

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) · Section 151 · Order XVIII Rule 17 · Order 8 Rule 1 · Order 9 Rule 1 · Order VIII Rule 10
Commercial Courts Act, 2015Section 2(1)(c)(x) · Section 2(1)(c)(xxi)

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Order dated 16.03.2026 in I.A.No.3 in Com.O.S.No.756/2025, by which the Commercial Court rejected I.A.Nos.3 and 4 (filed to recall and reopen the previous stage and for permission to file the written statement, the written statement having been tendered along with the applications).LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru · 16.03.2026
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed Com.O.S.No.756/2025 before the Commercial Court seeking recovery of possession/ejectment of the petitioners from Flat No.20309, Tower-2, Wing-B, Bharatiya City Nikoo Homes, Thanisandra Main Road, Bengaluru, together with damages, mesne profits and consequential reliefs; they alleged the petitioners were strangers in unauthorized occupation, denied any tenancy/lease, and alleged defendant No.3 (brokerage concern) had placed them in possession pursuant to a Realty Brokerage Services Agreement dated 14.09.2023; it was stated the dispute did not fall within commercial disputes.
Petitioners filed I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute was not a commercial dispute and the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction; the Commercial Court rejected it, holding the dispute fell under Section 2(1)(c)(x) and Section 2(1)(c)(xxi) of the Commercial Courts Act as arising out of a brokerage/consultancy arrangement involving defendant No.3.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti

Parties & counsel

Ms Umme Salma v. Smt. Surbhi Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Umme Salma v. Smt. Surbhi Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Muniraju Vs Smt. G a Sarvamangala

H.T Babu Vs Neravanda B Subbaiah Since Deceased by Lrs M N. Janaki

Trinetramilan Product Protection Solutions Private Limited Vs A.S. Narayanan

Manjunath T Vs Jayarama Reddy

Sri N Gurumurthy Vs Athaulla Rehaman

Smt Priyadharhini Vs Sri Palani Armugam