Karnataka High Court
COMAP/379/2026 of M/S GOWRI INFRA ENGINEERS PVT LTD Vs MRS. SUAJAYA JAYAPRASAD on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010531082026 NC: 2026:KHC:47670-DB COMAP No. 379 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2026 BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S GOWRI INFRA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT
HAVING REGD. OFFICE AT:
NO.1600, 3RD FLOOR, 5TH STAGE
BEML SOCIETY
HALAGEVADERAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 098
REP. BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR
CHANDRA KUMAR T
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.V. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIVCHARAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MRS. SUAJAYA JAYAPRASAD
W/O JAYAPRASAD SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
2.
JARA PRASAD SHETTY
S/O P.S. THIMMAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 13/14
Digitally
signed by
SRIDEVI S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
PRASAD RESIDENCY
INCOM TAX LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 040
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2
REPRRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
PRAGATHI GROUP
A REGISTERED PRATNERSHIP
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNER OF PRAGATHI GROUP
MR. G. MANJUNATH RAJU
S/O. GANGADHAR RAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
HAVING OFFICE AT:
No.28/2, 2ND FLOOR
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE – 560 052
3.
PRATHATHI GROUP
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP
HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 28/2
2ND FLOOR
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANGING PARTNER
MR. G. MANJUNATH RAJU
S/O GANGADHAR RAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
…RESPONDENTS
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 AND I.A.NO.4 IN
COMMERCIAL O.S. NO.231/2025 BY THE COURT OF THE
X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (DEDICATED
HC-KAR
COMMERCIAL
COURT)
BENGALURU
RURAL
DISTRICT,
BENGALURU, INSOFAR AS IT ALLOWS I.A.NO.1 AND REJECTS
I.A.NO.4 & ETC.
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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court in Com.OS.No.231/2025 on I.A.No.1 & 4. The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed IA.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] seeking temporary injunction restraining the appellant (defendant), from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party rights in respect of the subject property. An ad interim order was granted on 27.11.2025 and therefore the appellant had filed IA No. 4 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacating the said ex parte ad interim order.
2. The appellant claimed that he had purchased the subject property for a sum of `2,50,00,000/- and had paid `1,95,00,000/- towards renegotiated consideration. According to the appellant,
HC-KAR
only a sum of `55,00,000/- was payable as the balance consideration. However, the documentation recorded the consideration for the subject property at `4,51,97,000/-. Prima facie, there is no dispute that the documents on the basis of which the appellant claims title to the subject property records the consideration for the purchase as `4,51,97,000/-. Even if the appellant's case is accepted that the total consideration for the subject property was reduced to `2,50,00,000/-, it is admitted that the entire consideration for the property which is claimed by the appellant is not discharged.
3. Although the respondent has raised other objections, including limitation, the said issues are yet to be adjudicated and the subject matter of trial.
4. Considering that the appellant had admittedly not paid the entire sale consideration for the subject property, the Commercial Court passed the impugned order restraining the appellants from creating any third party rights in respect to the scheduled property. We are unable to accept that the said order is in disregard of legal principles and warrants interference on the anvil of the tests as laid
HC-KAR
down by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd., v. Antox India P. Ltd.1
5. We also note that the present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 107 days and there is no credible reason which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. The only reason provided by the appellant is that there were negotiations with the respondents. Clearly, that did not prevent the appellant from filing the appeal within the stipulated period.
6. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.
7. Pending application stands disposed of.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10
1 1990 SCC OnLine SC 490