Karnataka High Court
COMAP/356/2026 of MR. ABDUL WAJID Vs T. MOHAMMED MOIN on 17 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010485972026 NC: 2026:KHC:43980-DB COMAP No. 356 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.356 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.356 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
MR. ABDUL WAJID
S/O. MR. ABDUL KUDDUS,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PRESIDENT OF M/S. BENSON TRANQUILITY
OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
RESIDING AT NO.8, HARRIS ROAD,
BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560 046.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHAJAR AHAMAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. USMAN P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
T. MOHAMMED MOIN
S/O LATE T. ABDULLAH SAHIB,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
2.
T. MOHAMMED IRFAN
S/O MR. T. MOHAMMED MOIN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.18,
ATKINSON ROAD, VEPERY,
CHENNAI-600 007.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B
M
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
M/S. BENSON TRANQUILITY
OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
A REGISTERED ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS OF BENSON TRANQUILITY,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.30,
(OLD NO.3, SITE NO.10),
BENSON CROSS ROAD, JAYAMAHAL,
BENGALURU-560 046.
REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER.
4.
MR. MOHAMMED FAYAZ AHMED
S/O. LATE ABDUL GAFFAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
C/O NO.4, BENSON ROAD,
BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560 046.
5.
MR. C.V. TARUN TAJ BARHAM,
S/O. LATE C.H. VIVEKANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.4, BENSON ROAD,
BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 046.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 & R-2)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-
A) OF COMMERCIAL COURT ACT R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
05.02.2025 IN COM.O.S.NO.156/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH-88).
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
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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 [defendant No.1] has filed the present appeal, impugning the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Court of LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-88) [the Commercial Court] in Com.O.S.No.156/2020.
2. The present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 465 days. The appellant has filed the application-I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay. A plain reading of the said application indicates that the appellant was aware of the commercial suit, which had been decreed by judgment dated 10.10.2023. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition [Miscellaneous Petition No.13/2024] seeking restoration, which was allowed on 06.08.2024, and the matter was posted for hearing on 30.08.2024. Thereafter, applications were filed under Order VII Rule 10 and Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The applications also indicate that the appellant was aware of the disposal of the suit and of the filing of the Miscellaneous Petition through his advocate. However, he states that, thereafter,
HC-KAR
whenever he contacted his advocate, he was informed that the suit was pending. He subsequently came to know that the applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure [CPC] and under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 had been dismissed. Essentially, the appellant claims that he was unaware of the proceedings thereafter.
3. We are unable to accept the explanation offered by the appellant, particularly in view of the fact that he had filed a Miscellaneous Petition after the suit had been decreed, seeking restoration of the suit and the said petition was allowed and the suit was restored. Having obtained an order of restoration, the appellant was expected to diligently participate in the proceedings. However, the appellant failed to do so. From the material on record, it indicates that subsequent to the restoration of the suit, the defendants had filed applications, which came to be dismissed on 08.11.2024 and 25.11.2024, demonstrating that the appellant was aware of the continuation of the suit and proceedings. The learned Commercial Court has also noted that the appellant was aware of the proceedings.
HC-KAR
4. In view of the above, the application-I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected.
5. Pending application stands disposed of.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19