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. 36026 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

M/S KUSUMA BHANDARY CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SURESH BHANDARY OFF. AT 2^ND FLOOR, HOTEL LAKSHMI MAHAL, OPP. MISCHIEF MALL, OPP. K S RAO ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR. KSHAMA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O SRI SUDHEER KUMAR P. HEGDE, R/AT OM SRI NIVAS, AJJARKADU, JODUKATTE, UDUPI – 576 101 REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER / FATHER Digitally SRI. SUDHEER KUMAR P. HEGDE signed by …RESPONDENT MADHURI S (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Location:

SRI. SHIVARAM R. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

High Court of Karnataka THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 IN I.A.NO. III AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.10.2025 IN I.A.NO.V PASSED IN A.P.14 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF IT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT/ COMMERCIAL COURT, UDUPI, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO.III AND I.A.NO.V AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AS PER ANNEXURE- G AND H.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

This petition arises out of the proceedings in E.P.No.14/2024 pending before the II Addl.District Court (commercial court) at Udupi.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

The petitioner who is the respondent in the said petition filed by the respondent herein filed an application I.A.No.3 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the main petition on the ground of want / lack of jurisdiction of the commercial court at Udupi. The said application having been opposed by the respondent herein, the commercial court passed the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 rejecting the said application I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application I.A.No.5 under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 07.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.3. By the subsequent impugned order dated 25.10.2025, the commercial court proceeded to reject I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner, thereby confirming its earlier order dated 07.02.2025. Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 07.02.2025 and 25.10.2025, rejecting I.A.Nos. 3 and 5, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order sheet maintained by the arbitral tribunal in A.C.No.7/2019 in order to point out that both the petitioner and respondent had agreed that the seat of arbitration (proceedings) would be at Mangalore, as a result of which, the petition in A.P.No.14/2024 was not maintainable before the commercial court at Udupi and the petitioner had also assailed the arbitral award by filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ( for short ‘the said Act of 1996’) which was pending in A.P.No.21/2024 before the commercial court at Mangalore, the instant petition in A.P.No.14/2024 filed by the respondent before the commercial court at Udupi, was liable to be returned for lack / want of jurisdiction and the same was liable to be re-presented before the commercial court at Mangalore to be tried and disposed of along with A.P.No.21/2024 filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the commercial court committed an error in not correctly considering or appreciating these aspects of the matter and as such, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the applica