SARASWAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs M/S ROYALE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS

- 1 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


Reserved on: 22.09.2026
Pronounced on: 03.11.2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND


WRIT PETITION NO. 27233 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SARASWAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
BANK REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF MULTI-STATE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2002
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT EKANATH THAKUR
BHAWAN, 953, APPASAHEB
MARATHE MARG, PRABHADEVI,
MUMBAI- 400 025 AND ITS
RECOVERY DEPARTMENT AT
6TH FLOOR, HILL TOP BUILDING,
ANANT VISHRAM NAGWEKAR MARG,
HATISKAR WADI, NEAR BABASAHEB
WORLIKAR CHOWK, PRABHADEVI,
MUMBAI-400025 AND
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE
AT PAMADI TOWERS,
KALIDASA MARG,
GANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009

REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI. MANJUNATH H MANKANI
…PETITIONER










Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

(BY SRI B. C. AVINASH, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


AND:

1. M/S ROYALE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.4406/7/8, HIGH POINT IV,
45, PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
MR. SURESH BHATIA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/07/2026, VIDE
ANNEXURE K, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXXXVIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL
COURT), BANGALORE, CCH-89 ON I.A. NO.8 IN O.S.
NO.1233/2024 ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. ORDER

This petition is filed by the defendant in
Com.O.S.No.1233/2024, impugning the order dated
14.07.2026 passed by the LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'Commercial Court')
whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the

- 3 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement, came to be
rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-
plaintiff instituted the suit against the petitioner-defendant,
seeking a direction to pay a certain sum along with interest.
The respondent-Firm is engaged in the business of real estate.
The petitioner-Bank, pursuant to the recovery proceedings in
respect of a loan, notified certain mortgaged properties for
auction sale, pursuant to which the respondent made certain
deposits. Thereafter, the transaction remained inconclusive for
various reasons, and the deposit continued to remain with the
Bank. The suit came to be instituted for recovery of the said
deposit.

2.1 The petitioner-Bank initially did not appear before the
Commercial Court despite service of the suit summons and was
accordingly placed ex parte. The order placing the petitioner ex
parte was subsequently recalled, and the petitioner was
permitted to file its written statement. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the
written statement, which came to be allowed by the
Commercial Court. An application was filed under Order VII

- 4 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


Rules 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint.
Thereafter, the petitioner proposed a settlement, which,
however, was not reported to the Commercial Court. The
application filed under Order VII Rules 11(a) and (d) of the CPC
came to be rejected. The plaintiff-respondent proceeded to
record its evidence, and documents were marked in evidence.
Subsequently, certain applications were filed, to which the
petitioner-Bank filed its objections. At this stage, the impugned
application seeking amendment of the written statement was
filed, raising a plea that the suit was barred for non-compliance
with Section 115 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,
2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Commercial Court, by the
impugned order, rejected the said application.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the suit has been instituted against a Multi-State Co-operative
Society, and therefore, compliance with Section 115 of the Act
is mandatory. It is submitted that no suit shall be instituted
against a Multi-State Co-operative Society until the expiry of 90
days from the date of service of notice to the Central Registrar.
Learned counsel further submits that the requirement under
Section 115 of the Act is mandatory and that, even in the

- 5 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


absence of a specific plea in the written statement, it is
incumbent upon the Court to insist upon compliance with the
said provision before exercising its jurisdiction.

3.1 It is submitted that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of
the CPC, insofar as they relate to amendment of the written
statement, are required to be considered liberally, even where
the proposed amendment seeks to introduce new pleadings or
pleadings inconsistent with the earlier pleadings in the written
statement. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usha
Balashaheb Swami and Others v. Kiran Appaso Swami
1
and Others .

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the petitioner never pleaded or
disclosed that it is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative
Societies Act, either to the plaintiff or to the Commercial Court,
to enable the applicability and compliance of Section 115 of the
Act to be examined. It is submitted that, though the
maintainability of the suit was questioned in the written
statement on various grounds, the applicability of Section 115

1

(2007) 5 SCC 602

- 6 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


of the Act was never pleaded. It is further submitted that the
petitioner had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which came to be
dismissed. Though the examination-in-chief of PW-1 was
completed, the witness was not cross-examined for a
substantial period. It is submitted that, when all attempts to
delay the proceedings failed, the present application seeking
amendment of the written statement, introducing a plea of
non-compliance with Section 115 of the Act, has been filed
without even prima facie establishing the applicability of the
said provision.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 115 of the
Act is not applicable to every suit instituted against a Multi-
State Co-operative Society unless the parameters stipulated
therein are shown to be prima facie applicable. It is submitted
that an amendment to the written statement, after
commencement of the trial, cannot be permitted unless the
requirement of due diligence at the time of filing the written
statement is established. It is further submitted that
amendment of the written statement cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the

- 7 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


amendment now sought would seriously prejudice the rights
accrued to the respondent and would have a bearing on the
question of limitation. In support of the above submissions,
learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the
2
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj v. Indira and Others .

4.2 It is also submitted that the notice contemplated under
Section 115 of the Act is not mandatory, but is merely
procedural in nature. It is submitted that, by not raising the
issue of compliance with Section 115 of the Act at the
threshold, the petitioner is deemed to have waived such
requirement. In support of the said submission, reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
3
of A.P. and Others v. Pioneer Builders .

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for both parties.

6. The events and dates referred to hereinabove are not in
dispute. Two issues arise for consideration, which are as
follows:

2

(2024) 3 SCC 705
3

(2006) 12 SCC 119

- 8 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026



(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, amendment of the written statement
is permissible?

(b) Whether a prima facie case is made out for invoking
Section 115 of the Multi-State Co-operative
Societies Act, 2002?

7. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC provides for amendment of
pleadings. The proviso thereto imposes a restriction on
entertaining an application for amendment after
commencement of the trial. In the present case, by the time
the amendment was sought, the examination-in-chief of PW-1
had been completed and documents had been marked in
evidence. It is settled position of law that amendment of
pleadings may be permitted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings
and to facilitate comprehensive and effective adjudication of
the dispute. However, once the trial has commenced, the
burden lies on the party seeking amendment to establish that,
despite due diligence, the amendment could not have been
sought at an earlier stage. While considering an application for
amendment, the Court is also required to examine whether the
application is bona fide or mala fide and whether the proposed

- 9 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


amendment would cause prejudice to the other side which
cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money.

7.1 The petitioner is a statutory body, governed by and
regulated under an enactment. It cannot be said that the
petitioner was unaware of the statutory protection available to
it under the enactment in the event of a suit being instituted
against it. If a suit is instituted in breach of such statutory
protection, ordinarily, the first line of defence would be to
question the maintainability of the suit on the ground of such
protection or non-compliance with the statutory requirement.

7.2 In the present case, the petitioner has filed a written
statement running into 18 pages and containing 52 paragraphs.
In paragraph 3 of the written statement dated 10.12.2024, the
maintainability of the suit has been questioned, though not with
reference to Section 115 of the Act. Till the filing of the
impugned application, it was not even pleaded that the
petitioner is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies
Act. Unless such foundational averment is made, it would not
be open to the petitioner to subsequently plead non-compliance
with Section 115 of the Act. No doubt, on a plain reading of
Section 115 of the Act, the requirement contemplated therein is

- 10 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


mandatory. However, no reasons are forthcoming as to why
such a plea was not raised at the earliest stage. The affidavit
accompanying the application also does not state that, despite
due diligence, the requirement under Section 115 of the Act
could not be pleaded earlier.

8. The issue that now arises for consideration is whether the
application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and
whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the
other side. In order to examine this issue, the conduct of the
petitioner is required to be noticed.

8.1 The petitioner was placed ex parte on 14.10.2024. On
05.11.2024, an application was filed seeking permission to file
vakalat and to recall the order placing the petitioner ex parte .
By order dated 03.12.2024, the application filed under Order IX
Rule 7 of the CPC came to be allowed, the order placing the
petitioner ex parte was set aside, and the petitioner was
permitted to file its written statement. The written statement
came to be filed on 10.12.2024. Thereafter, certain applications
were filed and adjudicated upon. Both sides filed statements of
admission and denial of documents. Issues were framed.

- 11 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


8.2 On 12.02.2025, the plaintiff filed its list of witnesses. On
the said date, there was no representation on behalf of the
petitioner, nor had the petitioner furnished its list of witnesses.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order XIV
Rule 5 of the CPC, pursuant to which an additional issue came
to be framed. Subsequently, a few more applications were filed
and came to be disposed of.

8.3 On 18.03.2025, the petitioner filed an application under
Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. In the meantime, the
petitioner proposed settlement, resulting in deferment of
consideration of the said application, which ultimately came to
be rejected on 21.11.2025. On 30.01.2026, the plaintiff filed an
application under Order XI Rule 4 of the CPC seeking
production of documents. Thereafter, on 15.04.2026, the
defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC seeking amendment of the written statement, which came
to be rejected by the impugned order.

8.4 The above dates are relevant for examining the bona
fides of the petitioner in conducting the proceedings. The
sequence of events referred to above would weigh against the
petitioner, particularly when the petitioner appears to have

- 12 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


made repeated attempts resulting in delay in the progress of
the suit. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj
(supra), it is not only the necessity for the amendment but also
the due diligence exercised in seeking to raise the pleadings
proposed to be introduced by way of amendment that is
required to be established. In the present case, there is neither
any pleading nor any averment by the petitioner explaining the
due diligence exercised in seeking the proposed amendment.

8.5 Amendment of the written statement cannot be claimed
as a matter of right and cannot be permitted where the
proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the other side
which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money.
In the present case, permitting the proposed amendment with
reference to Section 115 of the Act would undoubtedly cause
prejudice to the respondent. Hypothetically, if the plea
regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-
compliance with Section 115 of the Act had been raised in the
written statement and the same had been adjudicated upon,
depending upon the finding regarding the applicability of the
said provision, the suit could have been re-presented after
complying with the statutory requirement. At this stage, if such
a plea is permitted to be raised and it is ultimately held that

- 13 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


Section 115 of the Act is applicable, the question of limitation
for re-presentation of the suit after compliance with Section
115 of the Act would arise.

8.6 The prolonged adjournments and the manner in which the
proceedings have progressed, particularly at the instance of the
petitioner, coupled with the failure to raise the plea at the
earliest opportunity, do not demonstrate bona fides in seeking
the proposed amendment. The attempt to raise the plea of a
statutory bar at this belated stage, instead of raising it at the
threshold, has the effect of further delaying the proceedings
and would cause prejudice to the respondent, which cannot be
adequately compensated in terms of money.

8.7 Even assuming that the applicability of Section 115 of the
Act is to be examined prima facie, the affidavit accompanying
the application for amendment does not even remotely plead as
to how the said provision is attracted to the present suit. The
amendment has been sought on the premise that every suit
instituted against the petitioner would attract Section 115 of
the Act. Such an understanding of the provision is
impermissible.

- 14 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


8.8 As per a plain reading of Section 115 of the Act, the bar
against institution of a suit without issuance of notice is
attracted where the issues relate to the constitution,
management or business of the Society. If the transaction in
question is examined in brief, the petitioner had notified certain
properties for public auction for recovery of its loan. The
respondent participated in the public auction and made certain
deposits. As the auction proceedings did not fructify, the
deposit was not refunded, resulting in institution of the suit.

8.9 The transaction relating to refund of the amount
deposited pursuant to the auction proceedings cannot, prima
facie, be said to relate to the constitution, management or
business of the Society. In the absence of a prima facie case
establishing the applicability of Section 115 of the Act, the
proposed amendment seeking to introduce a plea with
reference to the said provision need not be entertained,
particularly when the circumstances do not disclose bona fides
in seeking such amendment. Perhaps for this reason, the
applicability of Section 115 of the Act was not pleaded in the
first instance, when the maintainability of the suit was
questioned on other grounds.

- 15 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


8.10 No doubt, the applicability of Section 115 of the Act is
ultimately a matter for consideration by the Commercial Court.
However, when such an amendment is sought without
demonstrating bona fides and when the circumstances indicate
that it is intended to delay adjudication of the suit and would
cause serious prejudice to the rights of the other party, the
Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the application for
amendment.

9. It is also a settled position of law, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Basavaraj (supra), that where the proposed
amendment causes prejudice to the other side or seeks to take
away a right that has accrued to the other party, such
amendment cannot be permitted.

9.1 The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the judgment in Usha Balashaheb Swami
(supra) , to contend that a liberal approach is required to be
adopted while considering an application for amendment of the
written statement, is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In the said judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, in cases involving
amendment of a written statement, the Courts may adopt a

- 16 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


more liberal approach, even where the amendment has the
effect of introducing a new ground of defence, substituting or
altering a defence, or taking inconsistent pleas. However, such
an amendment remains subject to the other requirements
governing amendment of pleadings, including the requirement
of due diligence and absence of prejudice to the other side.

9.2 Considering the question of prejudice likely to be caused
to the other party, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pioneer Builders (supra) , to contend that
the requirement of notice under Section 115 of the Act can be
waived. The said judgment was rendered in the context of
Section 80 of the CPC. However, the language of Section 80 of
the CPC and Section 115 of the Act is not identical so as to
extend the same interpretation to the latter provision. In the
absence of any express provision permitting waiver in the
circumstances contemplated under Section 115 of the Act, such
an inference cannot be drawn, as it would amount to rewriting
the statutory provision, which is impermissible.

- 17 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


9.3 As held by the Bombay High Court in Saraswat Co-
4
operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Mulani Associates , the
transaction in question cannot be held to be one covered under
Section 115 of the Act. The Bombay High Court, in the said
judgment, has held that every activity or incident, whether
implied or incidental to the core business of the Society, cannot
be held to attract Section 115 of the Act. For Section 115 to be
attracted, the issue involved in the suit must necessarily relate
directly to the constitution, management or business of the
Society. In the present case, it is not even pleaded that the
sale of properties by public auction constitutes the business of
the petitioner-Society.

9.4 The Commercial Court, under the impugned order,
proceeded to hold that non-compliance with Section 115 of the
Act is a pure question of law and, therefore, need not
necessarily be pleaded. The Commercial Court rightly held that,
when the petitioner is a Multi-State Co-operative Bank to which
the provisions of Section 115 of the Act are applicable, the bar
against institution of a suit was well within the knowledge of
the petitioner and the omission to raise such a plea cannot be

4

2026 SCC OnLine Bom 7462

- 18 -
WP No. 27233 of 2026


attributed to mere oversight. Such omission or oversight
cannot be accepted, particularly when the proposed
amendment would prejudice the rights of the other party and is
sought at a belated stage without demonstrating bona fides.

10. In the light of the above reasons, this Court finds that the
impugned order does not suffer from any error or infirmity
warranting interference. The impugned order is well-reasoned
and is in consonance with the settled principles of law. The
present petition is devoid of merit.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .



Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE


VP