YAAHVI VENTURES vs SRI M L PRAKASH RAO
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
Reserved on : 07.09.2026
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. 8273 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. YAAHVI VENTURES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCOROPORATED
UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP, ACT 1932,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.371,
2ND FLOOR, TADIMALLAS,
13TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560080
REP BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY. N.
2. SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY. N.,
PARTNER, YAAHVI VENTURES
S/O. LATE N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
3. SRI. V. NEHAL
PARTNER, YAAHVI VENTURES
S/O. SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY. N
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
4. SMT. PADMAVATHI. K
PARTNER, YAAHVI VENTURES
S/O. SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY. N
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B
S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
PETITIONER Nos. 2-3 ARE
R/AT NO. 371, 2ND FLOOR,
TADIMALLAS, 13TH MAIN ROAD,
RMV EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560080.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI M L PRAKASH RAO,
AGED ABOUT, 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 35, SRIKANTAN LAYOUT
HIGH GROUNDS,
BANGALORE, 560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ASHWINI PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFYING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.12.2025 PASSED IN IA NO. 3 IN
COM. OS NO. 152/2025 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP
AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PLACE THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT ON BOARD BEFORE THE LXXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-90) (COMMERCIAL
COURT BANGALORE) IN COM OS NO. 152/2025.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. ORDER
Heard Sri Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and
Smt. Ashwini Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
caveator/respondent.
2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the LXXXIX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Commercial Court’ for short), in Commercial O.S.
No.152 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioners
under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ for short), seeking setting
aside of the ex parte order dated 18.09.2025 came to be
allowed. However, the petitioners were denied the right to file
their written statement.
3. The facts in brief are that:
3.1 Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and petitioner Nos.2
to 4 are its partners. Respondent–plaintiff instituted a
Commercial suit in Commercial O.S. No.152 of 2025 before the
- 4 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
Commercial Court seeking a decree directing the defendants to
pay a sum of Rs.8,72,139/- towards arrears of rent, along with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The suit came to be
instituted on 31.01.2025.
3.2 The Commercial Court, on 01.02.2025, directed issuance
of suit summons and emergent notice to defendant Nos.1 to 4
through Court process, Registered Post Acknowledgment Due
(RPAD) and e-mail, subject to steps being taken. Subsequently,
on 22.03.2025, the Commercial Court again directed issuance
of suit summons to defendant Nos.1 to 4 through Court
process, RPAD and e-mail. On 22.04.2025, the Commercial
Court once again directed issuance of suit summons to
defendant Nos.1 to 4 through the aforesaid modes. However,
the office note recorded in the order sheet on the said date
indicates that the RPAD cover was returned with an
endorsement of “not claimed”, as the premises of the
defendants were found locked.
3.3 Thereafter, on 13.06.2025, the Commercial Court
directed issuance of suit summons to defendant Nos.1 to 4 by
hand and through the learned counsel appearing for the
defendants in Criminal Appeal Nos.1558 of 2024 and 1559 of
- 5 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
2024. On 15.07.2025, the Commercial Court once again
directed issuance of suit summons to defendant Nos.1 to 4
through RPAD, as the learned counsel appearing for the
defendants in the aforesaid criminal appeals had refused to
receive the summons.
3.4 On 18.08.2025, the plaintiff filed an application under
Order V Rule 20 of the CPC seeking issuance of summons by
way of substituted service through affixture. The Commercial
Court, taking note of the fact that the summons issued to
defendant Nos.1 to 4 at their last known address had been
returned unserved with an endorsement of “not claimed”, and
that the learned counsel appearing for the defendants in
Criminal Appeal Nos.1558 of 2024 and 1559 of 2024 had
refused to receive the summons, observed that defendant
Nos.1 to 4 were willfully keeping themselves away from the
process of the Court. Accordingly, the Commercial Court
directed issuance of suit summons to defendant Nos.1 to 4 by
way of substituted service through affixture on a conspicuous
part of their last known address, through Court process. The
matter was thereafter posted to 18.09.2025.
- 6 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
3.5 On 18.09.2025, the Commercial Court, noticing the
absence of defendant Nos.1 to 4, held the service of summons
to be sufficient and placed the said defendants ex parte .
Subsequently, on 16.10.2025, the learned counsel appearing
for defendant Nos.1 to 4 entered appearance before the
Commercial Court and filed I.A. No.3 under Order IX Rule 7 of
the CPC, seeking setting aside of the ex parte order dated
18.09.2025 passed against them.
3.6 The Commercial Court, by its order dated 08.12.2025,
allowed the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC,
subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, and set aside the
ex parte order passed against defendant Nos.1 to 4. However,
the Commercial Court, taking note of the fact that the
summons issued to the defendants through RPAD pursuant to
the order dated 22.04.2025 had been returned with an
endorsement of “not claimed”, held that the period of 120 days
prescribed for filing the written statement had already elapsed
on 21.08.2025. Consequently, notwithstanding the setting
aside of the ex parte order, the Commercial Court declined to
permit defendant Nos.1 to 4 to file their written statement.
- 7 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that there has been no service of suit summons on the
petitioners from the date of its initial issuance. It is only upon
service of summons by way of substituted service through
affixture that the petitioners became aware of the institution of
the suit and the proceedings therein.
4.1 It is contended that, since the Commercial Court, on
18.09.2025, held the service of summons to be sufficient and
placed the petitioners ex parte , the said date ought to have
been reckoned as the date of service of suit summons for the
purpose of computing the period prescribed for filing the
written statement. However, the Commercial Court has
erroneously proceeded on the premise that the suit summons
stood served on 22.04.2025, merely because the RPAD cover
was returned with an endorsement of “not claimed”.
4.2 Learned counsel would further submit that, upon the
appearance of the defendants before the Commercial Court on
16.10.2025, the Commercial Court directed the plaintiff to
furnish copies of the plaint along with the documents to the
defendants.
- 8 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
4.3 It is contended that, notwithstanding such a direction,
copies of the plaint and the accompanying documents came to
be furnished to the defendants only on 11.11.2025, with a view
to ensuring that the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1
of the CPC for filing the written statement would elapse. It is,
therefore, submitted that the Commercial Court has erred in
denying the petitioners an opportunity to file their written
statement, despite having allowed the application filed under
Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC and set aside the ex parte order.
4.4 In support of the submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Atlanta Limited v.
1
Metso India Private Limited .
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the suit summons issued through RPAD had
been returned with an endorsement of “not claimed” on more
than one occasion, which is demonstrative of the mala fide
intention of the defendants to evade service of summons.
5.1 It is further submitted that, in view of the persistent and
deliberate evasion of service by the defendants, the plaintiff
1
AIR 2021 Bombay 300
- 9 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
was constrained to file an application seeking issuance of
summons by way of substituted service through affixture.
5.2 Learned counsel would contend that the return of suit
summons with an endorsement of “not claimed” ought to be
construed as a refusal to receive summons and, consequently,
the period prescribed for filing the written statement would
commence from the date of such refusal. It is, therefore,
submitted that the Commercial Court was justified in declining
to permit the defendants to file their written statement upon
expiry of the statutory period of 120 days.
5.3 In support of the submission, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajeet Seeds
2
Ltd. v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah .
6. Considered the Submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
7. The present suit is a commercial suit. In view of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts
(India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P)
2
(2014) 12 SCC 685
- 10 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
3
Ltd., , in Commercial Suits under the Commercial Courts Act,
2013, the right to file the written statement stands forfeited
upon expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons,
and the Court shall not permit the written statement to be
taken on record thereafter. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment read as under:
“…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 the proviso in Order 8 Rule
10 also adding that the court has no further
power to extend the time beyond this period of
120 days.”
8. The Commercial Court, on various dates, directed
issuance of suit summons to the defendants. However, the
office note recorded in the order sheet dated 22.04.2025
indicates that the RPAD covers addressed to defendant Nos.1 to
4 were returned with an endorsement of “not claimed”, with a
further indication that the premises of the defendants were
3
(2019) 12 SCC 210
- 11 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
found locked. Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances and
observing that the defendants were wilfully keeping themselves
away from the process of the Court, the Commercial Court, by
its order dated 18.08.2025, directed issuance of suit summons
by way of substituted service through affixture. Subsequently,
on 18.09.2025, the Commercial Court, noticing the absence of
the defendants, held the service of summons to be sufficient
and placed defendant Nos.1 to 4 ex parte .
9. The Commercial Court, in the order impugned, has denied
the defendants the right to file their written statement on the
premise that the suit summons issued through RPAD pursuant
to the order dated 22.04.2025 had been returned with the
postal endorsement of “not claimed”. Treating the said
endorsement as constituting sufficient service of summons, the
Commercial Court proceeded to reckon the period of 120 days
prescribed for filing the written statement from the said date
and consequently held that the right of the defendants to file
their written statement stood forfeited upon expiry of the
prescribed period.
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the
return of suit summons with a postal endorsement of “not
- 12 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
claimed” could, by itself, be construed as sufficient service so
as to trigger the commencement of the statutory period of 120
days prescribed for filing the written statement. The Bombay
High Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited
4
v. Nasibunnisa Mohammed Israr Khan and Others , has
held that when summons are returned with postal
endorsements such as “intimation posted and unclaimed” or
“not claimed”, the same cannot be accepted as constituting
valid service of summons. The relevant paragraphs read as
under:
1. The issue which arises for consideration
is “whether a notice issued by the Court by
Registered Post acknowledgment duewhich is
returned back with the remarks of the Postman
“intimationposted” and “unclaimed” or “not claimed”
can be taken as good aservice ?” Since, the
issue arises in many matters, I requested
Mr.Sathaye, learned counselto assist the
Court.Accordingly, thelearned counsel appearing for
the Applicant and Mr.Sathaye, AmicusCuriae, have
made detailed submissions.
Xxxxx
14. As pointed out earlier, when summons
or notice is issued by Registered Post A.D. by
invoking Rule 9 of Order V, there is no specific
provision either in the said Code or in the Appellate
Side Rules which deals with the contingency where
4
Civil Application No. 1979 of 2011 in First Appeal (Stamp) No.
13185 of 2011, decided on 14 October 2011
- 13 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
the postal article containing the summons or notice
is returned with remark “intimation posted” and
“unclaimed” or “not claimed”. The SubRule (5) of the
Rule 9 of Order V which provides that in certain
cases the Court Shall declare that the summons has
been duly served significantly does not cover a case
where the summons or notice issued by Registered
Post A.D. is returned with remark “intimation
posted” and “unclaimed” or “not claimed”. Now the
question is whether in such a case the presumption
under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act or
Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be invoked.
Such presumption is held to be a rebuttable
presumption. Essentially a presumption is a rule of
evidence and the question of invoking presumption
arises only after parties adduce evidence. The
presumption under both the sections is a rebuttable
presumption. The presumption is a rule of evidence
which can be applied only after the parties adduce
evidence inasmuch as only at that stage, there is an
opportunity to rebut the presumption. When it comes
to service of summons or notice as required by the
said Code, at the stage of service of summons or
notice, the Court cannot invoke the presumption
either under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act or
under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and hold that
the service effected in such manner is a good
service. The decisions which hold such service as
“good service” are rendered in relation to the service
of statutory notice by the landlord to the tenant or
notices exchanged between the parties. In these
cases, such presumption was invoked after the
parties adduced evidence. Therefore, whensummons
or notice of the Court issued by Registered Post A.D.
is returned with a remark “intimation posted” and
“not claimed” or “unclaimed”, the same cannot be
accepted as a good service. The reason is that at
that stage there is no scope to invoke the rebuttable
presumption. As pointed out earlier, apart from the
fact that the presumption as aforesaid is a rule of
evidence, even assuming that there is a proper
- 14 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
service of an intimation, the postal authorities do not
keep the postal articlesin the post office for more
than few days and the same are returned to the
sender. In case of the Defendant who is away for
more than few days, even if he visits the post office
for collecting the postal article, he will not get the
postal article if it is already returned. It is pertinent
to note that while substituting the Rule 9 of Order V
of the said Code, though the legislature has
expressly provided that if a postal article containing
the summons is received back with an endorsement
of refusal, the same shall be treated as good service,
there is no such provision made in a case where
summons or notice issued by Registered Post A.D. is
returned with a remark “intimation posted” and “not
claimed” or “unclaimed”. Therefore, in such a case,
the service of summons or Court notice cannot be
treated as a good service. The settled law of invoking
presumption of service of notice by landlord to the
tenant will not apply to service of summons or
notice.
11. The Commercial Court, in the order impugned, has
observed that the plaintiff, by way of abundant caution, sought
issuance of summons through substituted service by way of
affixture under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC. Such a finding of
the Commercial Court cannot be countenanced, particularly
when the Commercial Court itself had directed substituted
service of summons and subsequently held the service to be
sufficient only on 18.09.2025. Once the Commercial Court, by
its order dated 18.09.2025, recorded that service of summons
was sufficient, it could not have simultaneously proceeded on
the premise that the postal endorsement of “not claimed”
- 15 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
recorded pursuant to the order dated 22.04.2025 constituted
sufficient service for the purpose of reckoning the statutory
period of 120 days. The Commercial Court, therefore, fell into
error in treating the said postal endorsement as the starting
point for computing the period prescribed for filing the written
statement.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed
strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
5
in Ajeet Seeds Ltd. v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah , to contend
that where a notice is dispatched to the correct address of the
addressee, a presumption of due service arises by virtue of
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section
27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, the said
judgment was rendered in the context of service of a statutory
demand notice contemplated under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and not in relation to service
of suit summons governed by the provisions of Order V of the
CPC. The question of service of suit summons under Order V of
the CPC stands on a distinct statutory footing and is governed
by the procedure prescribed thereunder. Therefore, the
5
(2014) 12 SCC 685
- 16 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
aforesaid judgment, rendered in the context of a statutory
notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be
mechanically applied to the facts of the present case to
conclude that the suit summons stood duly served merely
because the postal cover was returned with an endorsement of
“not claimed”. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the respondent on the aforesaid judgment, therefore, does not
advance the case of the respondent.
13. The next question that falls for consideration is as to the
date from which the period prescribed for filing the written
statement ought to be reckoned in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. To answer the said question, it becomes
necessary to advert to the object and purpose underlying the
service of suit summons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Auto
6
Cars v. Trimurti Cargo Movers (P) Ltd., , while elucidating
the object of service of summons, has held in paragraph 26 as
follows:
“26. The object behind sending the summons is
essentially threefold— first, it is to apprise the
defendant about the filing of a case by the
plaintiff against him; second, to serve the
6
(2018) 15 SCC 166
- 17 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
defendant with the copy of the plaint filed against
him; and third, to inform the defendant about
actual day, date, year, time and the particular
court so that he is able to appear in the court on
the date fixed for his/her appearance in the said
case and answer the suit either personally or
through his lawyer.”
14. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would indicate that
the object of service of summons is threefold; firstly , to
apprise the defendant of the institution of a suit by the plaintiff
against him; secondly , to furnish the defendant with a copy of
the plaint filed against him; and thirdly , to inform the
defendant of the day, date, year, time and the Court before
which he is required to appear and answer the suit, either
personally or through his learned counsel. Thus, the object of
service of summons is not merely to secure the appearance of
the defendant before the Court, but also to afford him an
opportunity to acquaint himself with the pleadings and
effectively answer the claim made against him.
15. In the case at hand, the order dated 16.10.2025 passed
by the Commercial Court would indicate that, upon the
appearance of the defendants, the Commercial Court directed
the plaintiff to furnish copies of the plaint along with the
- 18 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
accompanying documents to the defendants. It is the specific
contention of the petitioners that, notwithstanding the said
direction, the plaintiff furnished copies of the plaint and the
accompanying documents only on 11.11.2025.
16. This Court, bearing in mind the object underlying the
service of summons, as elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Auto Cars (supra), and having regard to the peculiar
facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case, is of the
considered view that the period prescribed for filing the written
statement ought to be reckoned from 11.11.2025, the date on
which copies of the plaint and the accompanying documents
are stated to have been furnished to the defendants.
Consequently, the Commercial Court was not justified in
reckoning the statutory period of 120 days from 22.04.2025,
merely on the strength of the postal endorsement of “not
claimed”, and in denying the defendants their right to file the
written statement on that basis.
17. In view of the foregoing, the following:
O R D E R
I. The writ petition stands allowed .
- 19 -
WP No. 8273 of 2026
II. The impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by
the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, in Commercial O.S. No. 152 of
2025 is hereby set aside , insofar as it denies the
petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 the right to file
their written statement.
III. The petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are hereby
permitted to file their written statement before the
Commercial Court on or before 18.11.2026.
IV. The Commercial Court shall take on record the
written statement, if filed within the time stipulated
above, and proceed with the suit in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS