IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1717 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S B E CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED

11-C, VANDHANA, 11 TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRAKASH CHAND JOSHI-MANAGER S/O BHAIRAV DUTT JOSHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

2. MR. SANJAY GUJRAL S/O. B K GUJRAL AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, DIRECTOR M/S. B.E. CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED

11-C, VANDHANA, 11 TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI -110 001.

3. MR. SIDDHARTH GUJRAL Digitally signed S/O. SANJAY GUJRAL by CHANDANA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, B M Location: H igh DIRECTOR, Court of M/S BE CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED Karnataka

11-C, VANDHANA, 11 TOLSTOY MARG.

NEW DELHI-110 001.

4. VANITA GUJRAL W/O. SANJAY GUJRAL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, DIRECTOR, M/S. B.E. CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED

11-C, VANDHANA, 11 TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHASHANK KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S VARUN ENTERPRISES (PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM)

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. KARTHIK K. S/O. KRISHNAPPA, OFFICE AT NO.8, 9, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE, RMV EXTENSION, ASHWATH NAGAR (DOLLARS COLONY)

BANGALORE - 560 094.

…RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2026 PASSED ON THE I.A.NO.V IN COM.O.S.NO.1137/2023 UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AT ANNEXURE-G, PASSED BY THE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND DIRECT THE HON’BLE COURT TO PASS ORDERS AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADMISSIONS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the defendants in Com.O.S.No.1137/2023 on the file of the Commercial Court is directed against the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.V whereby the said application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking passing of a judgment based on admissions of the plaintiff and consequently dismiss the suit was rejected by the Trial Court.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit against the petitioners- defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,28,16,076/- together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit, till realisation.

3. The said suit was contested by the petitioners-

defendants, pursuant to which issues were framed by the Commercial Court and after completion of evidence of the plaintiff’s and at the stage of defendants’ evidence, the petitioners filed the instant application invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking to pass a judgment on admissions of the plaintiff and consequently dismiss the suit. The said application having been opposed by the respondent-plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application by holding as under:

“ORDER ON IA No.V The defendants have filed above application Under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC seeking to pass a judgment based on the admissions of the plaintiff and dismiss the suit accordingly.

2. It is averred in the affidavit of Authorized Signatory of defendants filed in support of application that, plaintiff has instituted present suit for recovery of Rs.1,28,16,076/- for alleged non- payment of invoice dues. Defendant No.1 company denies such dues and all dues have been cleared by said company against all invoices. Further defendants have narrated issues framed in this case in the application and further averred that the plaintiff has examined its' sole Proprietor as PW1 and at the outset in para No.4, PW1 has admitted that the amount claimed in demand notice is different from amount claimed in plaint. In demand notice claim of Rs.67,97,126/- is made and in plaint an amount of Rs.1,28,16,076/- is claimed by plaintiff. Hence when there is no demand, there is no cause of action and amount cannot be claimed. It is further averred that PW1 claims to have been doing business since 2015-16 with