SMT. N. KOMALA, vs M/S. SAMRUDDHI HOUSING,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 338 OF 2026 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SMT. N. KOMALA,
W/O. SRI. H.K. SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.1616, “LAKSHMI NILAYA”,
ST RD
1 “B” CROSS, 3 MAIN,
ST ND
1 PHASE, 2 STAGE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE – 560 040
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.K.SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SHIVA KUMAR N., ADVOCATE AND
SRI.JEEVAN S.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SAMRUDDHI HOUSING,
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
OFFICE AT NO.40, GROUND FLOOR,
BETWEEN 3RD AND 4TH CROSS,
SIRUR PARK ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 003,
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. HANUMAN H.V.
2. MR. H.S. YASHAWANTH GOWDA,
S/O. SRI. H.K. SURESH,
R/AT NO.1616, LAKSHMI NILAYA,
ST RD
1 B CROSS, 3 MAIN,
ST ND
1 PHASE, 2 STAGE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
BANGALORE – 560 040
3. MR. H. S. PRASHANTH GOWDA,
S/O. SRI. H.K. SURESH,
R/AT NO.1616, LAKSHMI NILAYA,
ST RD
1 B CROSS, 3 MAIN, 1ST PHASE
2ND STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE – 560 040
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O/DATED:
07/10/2026)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 PASSED ON IA IN OS
NO.1866/2023 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT., AT BENGALURU.,
DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER SEC.8 OF ARBITRATION
AND CONCILIATION ACT., DATED 28.11.2024.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2026 passed in
O.S.No.1866/2023 by IV Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, the petitioner/defendant
No.1 is before this Court.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
2. The suit is filed for specific performance. In that, an
application came to be filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act. It is the case of the defendant that, as per
Clause 10 of the Registered Agreement of Sale dated
11.02.2020 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the
plaintiff, he can exhaust his remedies available by referring the
matter to an arbitrator as per Clause 10 of the said agreement.
But the plaintiff, instead of invoking the arbitration
proceedings, has filed the present suit, which is not
maintainable and the Court has no jurisdiction. That came to be
dismissed by order impugned.
3. The trial Court, while rejecting the application, has
observed that the application is filed by the defendant after
lapse of 90 days. The trial Court has already taken the written
statement as not filed. It is clear that Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act states that the submission for
referring to an arbitrator should be made not later than the
date of submitting his statement on the substance of the
disputes, i.e., 90 days from the date of appearance. In the
present case, the application filed by the defendant after his
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
written statement is taken as not filed by the court. The
defendant cannot invoke Section 8 of the Arbitration Act and
accordingly dismissed the application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that there is no inordinate delay in filing the
application. Within a reasonable time the application is filed.
When there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, the trial
court lacks jurisdiction and the court cannot entertain the suit.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
drawn the attention of the Court to the agreement, particularly
Clause-10 of the agreement wherein it says if there is any
dispute, the parties may refer to arbitration. It is submitted
that as the word used is ‘may,’ it cannot be said that unless the
same is exhausted, the suit is not maintainable.
6. He relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of M/s Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP Vs.
Smt. Sulekha Verma and others , arising out of Commercial
Appeal No.618/2025 dated 12.01.2026 . He relied on
paragraph 17 which reads as follows:
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
“17. It is clear from the plain language of
Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the A&C
Act that an application under Section 8
can be made not later than the date of
submitting his first statement on the
substance of the dispute. In the present
case, the right to furnish the written
statement was closed on 18.12.2024.
Therefore, the right of defendant No.1 to
file an application under Section 8 stood
extinguished as well.”
7. He relied on another judgment in case of P.
1
Tarachand Vs. Seshamal M. Jain and Others . He relied on
paragraph Nos.36 and 47, which read as follows:
“36. In this context, it is relevant to state
that Section 8 of the Act of 1996 enables a
party to a suit to seek reference of the
matter to arbitration by taking necessary
steps in that regard as contemplated under
the said provisions contained in Section 8. It
is well settled that unless a party to an
arbitration agreement seeks reference to
arbitration in a pending suit governed by Act
of 1996 by filing necessary application in
accordance with the provisions contained in
Section 8, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
not ousted and the party who does not take
recourse to the procedure provided under
Section 8 is deemed to have waived his right
not only to seek reference to arbitration but
also his contention that the Civil Court’s
jurisdiction stood ousted because of the
arbitration clause. It is interesting to note
that under the Act of 1940, there was no
provision similar to Section 8 of the Act of
1996 and consequently, in the absence of a
1
2019 SCC Online KAR 2768
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
similar provision in the Act of 1940,
jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be said
to have been ousted simply/merely on
account of the arbitration clause.
47. It is not in dispute that in the instant
case, the petitioner not only chose not to
contest the matter prior to passing of the
preliminary decree, but he also did not file an
application under section 8 of the Act of
1996. Consequently, the right of the
petitioner, if any, to seek reference to
arbitration and consequent ousting of the
jurisdiction of the Court stood waived and
the petitioner is stopped from contending
that the preliminary decree passed by the
court in O.S.No.2018/1995 was without
jurisdiction.”
8. He relied on another judgment of this Court in the
case of Prasanna V Ghotage Vs. Bharat Earth Movers Limited,
arising out of W.P.No.1187/2020 C/w W.P.No.1133/2020
dated 10.07.2024 . He relied on paragraph Nos.9 and 10, which
read hereinunder:
“9. The law on the maintainability of the suit
when there is an arbitration clause and what
is the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act there is not dispute on
that. But the defendant in this case has
abused the process of the court. The
Judgments which the learned Senior Counsel
has relied on pertaining to Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 and
application of those judgments to the facts of
the case is not required for the reason that
much water has flown. He has been
contesting the matter right from the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
beginning and the whole purport of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a
consensual and effective method of resolving
the commercial disputes between the parties.
It is settled law that if the written statement
includes an objection to the maintainability
of the suit, it is not necessary the file a
separate application making such an
objection or requesting the court to refer the
parties to arbitration without requiring a
separate application. Arbitration is preferred
as one of the most preferred modes of
dispute resolution primarily with the
expectation of speedy resolution of disputes.
A party cannot contest the matter before the
court and after contesting for 10 years
suddenly he cannot realize and come up with
an application and also relying on the
judgments which applies at the threshold. If
this court relying on those judgments and at
this stage relegate the parties to Arbitration,
it is a clear injustice to the parties and that is
not the purport of the Arbitration and the
Conciliation Act. When it comes to the
amendment, the amendment that is sought is
about the facts which are very much in the
knowledge of the defendant and when the
matter is coming up for defendant’s
evidence, when the plaintiffs evidence is
already closed. At this point of time, they
cannot come up with these kind of
applications stating that those facts are not
the new facts. It is not alone about
introducing a new case, it is about what was
the reason why these facts could not be
brought to the notice of the court at the
earliest point of time. The due diligence is
absent from the pleading or the conduct of
the parties. The grounds that are raised
cannot be the ground for allowing an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC,
after the trial has commenced and almost at
the fag end of the trial.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
10. The conduct of the defendant is reflecting
from the impugned proceedings. It is also
settled law that no party can be permitted to
abuse the process of court by indulging in the
delaying tactics with the sole intention to
deprive the party from having the relief from
the court. If the intention of the defendant is
clear and bonafide he would have stick to the
stand that the dispute is a arbitrable dispute
and civil court has no jurisdiction. But he
keeps quiet from 2013 to 2018 and even
when the order is passed dismissing the
application, defendant still keeps quiet and
files further application under order 6 Rule
17 and to recall PW1. The plaintiff is a central
government company and the suit is recovery
of an amount of Rs.46 crores and odd.
Successfully the suit is dragged from 2013 to
2024. The applications that are filed runs
contrary to the other. Both the writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed.”
Relying on these, it is submitted that the Civil Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
9. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material on record. In light of the judgments
referred supra, no further consideration is required by this
Court on two aspects. First, a perusal of the arbitration
agreement clearly reveals that there is no force in the said
agreement, whereby parties are compelled to go for arbitration,
because the word ‘may’ is used. Second, the application under
Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55996
CRP No. 338 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010235272026
beyond 90 days. Even on that count, the trial court was
justified in dismissing the application. Hence, on these two
grounds, the writ petition has to be dismissed. Accordingly, this
Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed .
ii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
PKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
*AK