A party must apply for arbitration before submitting its first statement; once the opportunity to file a written statement is closed, so is the right to arbitration.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act], impugning an order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court], dismissing I.A.No.4 in Com.O.S.No.685/2024.

2. The appellant had filed the said application under Section 8 of the A&C Act, inter alia, praying that the parties be referred to arbitration.

3. The appellant's application was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that it had not filed its written statement within the prescribed time and that its right to file the same had closed. The learned Commercial Court also found that some of the parties to the suit were not signatories to the arbitration agreement relied on by the appellant.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 [the plaintiffs] had filed the aforementioned suit, inter alia, seeking a decree for a sum of `53,93,279/- (Rupees fifty three lakhs ninety three thousand two hundred and seventy nine only). The appellant was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit. Additionally, five other parties were arrayed as defendant Nos.2 to 6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be referred to as the plaintiffs, and the parties arrayed as the defendants shall be referred to as such.

5. The plaintiffs claim that defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were Real Estate Builders and Developers, introduced to the plaintiffs by defendant No.

6. They claim they were induced to invest in the project named 'Golden Ira, ' being developed by defendant No. 1 (appellant).

6. The plaintiffs claim that they have invested a total sum of `49,50,000/- in the said project, which was being developed at Raghunathapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. They claim that the defendants assured them that the amount they invested would be doubled by the end of three years. The plaintiffs claim that they entered into three separate agreements with respect to respective residential plots in the project, being an agreement dated 19.08.2016 in respect of Plot No.511; an agreement dated 19.11.2016 in respect of Plot No.490; and an agreement dated 16.08.2017 in respect of Plot No.385. The plaintiffs state that they issued a legal notice dated 12.06.2023, and thereafter, negotiations were held between the parties, but the dispute could not be resolved.

7. The suit Com.O.S.No.685/2024 was registered on 27.04.2024, and the summons was directed to be issued to the defendants on 27.04.2024, returnable on 14.06.2024. The order sheet indicates that the summons to defendant No.2 (M/s.Golden Gate Properties Limited) was served. However, the summons to defendant No.1 and two other defendants remained unserved. Accordingly, on 14.06.2024, the learned Commercial Court directed the issuance of fresh summons to the said defendants, and the suit was listed for hearing on 20.07.2024. Since the plaintiffs had not taken the necessary steps, the learned Commercial Court passed an order dated 20.07.2024 directing the re-issue of the suit summons to unserved defendants (defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 6) by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) returnable on 24.08.2024.

8. The said summons was served, and defendant No.1 was represented by his advocate on 24.08.2024. The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 submitted that he had not received the plaint documents. Accordingly, the learned Commercial Court directed that the documents be furnished to defendant No. 1 and re- listed the suit on 30.08.2024. The suit could not be taken up on the said date as the learned Judge was on training and accordingly, the suit was directed to be listed on 13.09.2024. On 13.09.2024, the learned Commerc