“Ingenious Method to Sustain Suit Before Court Without Jurisdiction”: Karnataka High Court Allows Petition, Says “Non-Existent Judgments Cited—Further Action Against Judge Required”
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru allowed a civil revision petition seeking the return of a plaint filed before the City Civil Court, holding that the suit, concerning a commercial dispute, was not maintainable before a regular civil court. The Single Bench of Justice R. Devdas, in an order dated 24 March 2025, recorded that the suit had been “ingeniously” framed to bring within jurisdiction claims that fell under the purview of the Commercial Court. The Court also noted with concern that the trial court judge cited non-existent decisions purportedly of the Supreme Court in the impugned order and directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice for further action.
The petition before the High Court arose from an application filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 7166/2024 before the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC. The application was dismissed by the trial court on 25 November 2024, prompting the present revision under Section 115 of the CPC.
The plaintiffs had earlier filed a commercial suit in Com.O.S.No.1351/2024 before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from acting on invocation notices dated 28 September 2024 related to pledged shares. The defendants, non-banking finance companies, had issued an acceleration notice on 25 March 2022, followed by invocation and sale notices concerning pledged shares of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs withdrew the commercial suit via memo dated 1 October 2024, reserving liberty to file afresh. However, instead of approaching the Commercial Court again, the plaintiffs instituted a fresh suit before the City Civil Court. The defendants contested the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the subject matter was commercial in nature and thus exclusively triable by the Commercial Court.
Senior Counsel Prabhuling K. Navadgi, appearing for the defendants, contended that the plaintiffs had attempted to create jurisdiction where none existed by impleading parties with whom no commercial relationship existed. He argued that the Commercial Court had been bypassed deliberately, and the trial court had erroneously accepted citations of Supreme Court judgments that, upon verification, did not exist.
In response, Senior Counsel Shyam Sundar, appearing for the plaintiffs, contended that only some of the plaintiffs had commercial relationships with the defendants, and others did not. Therefore, the suit, in his submission, was maintainable before the civil court. He also cited a Calcutta High Court judgment in Ladymoon Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Investments Advisors Pvt. Ltd., asserting that commercial flavour must be unimpeachable for a dispute to fall under the Commercial Courts Act.
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ notices were designed to catch them off guard and to circumvent legal process, and that the suit was properly framed to obtain appropriate relief against such actions.
Justice Devdas examined the sequence of proceedings and the framing of the suit. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had earlier filed a commercial suit and then, without obtaining leave to approach the civil court, withdrew it and filed a new suit before a forum lacking jurisdiction. The Court observed: “This is an ingenious method adopted by the plaintiffs seeking to maintain a suit before a court which had no jurisdiction.”
The Court examined the impleadment of nine entities as plaintiffs, noting that only two had received notices from the defendants and thus had cause to litigate. The others had no direct grievance. The Court recorded: “Only those plaintiffs to whom demand notices were issued are aggrieved and they are entitled to seek relief at the hands of the competent court. Such of the plaintiffs could not have included some other entities to whom the defendants had not issued notices.”
On the question of case citations relied upon by the trial court, the High Court observed that the learned judge had referred to two decisions as rendered by the Supreme Court—Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Millenium Telecom Ltd. and Kvalrner Cemintation India Ltd. v. Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd.—which did not exist. The Court recorded: “What is more disturbing is the fact that the learned judge of City Civil Court has cited two decisions which were never decided by the Apex Court or any other Court.”
It was further noted that counsel for the plaintiffs had categorically denied citing those judgments during argument. The Court stated: “The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. This act on the part of the learned judge would require further probe and appropriate action in accordance with law.”
The Court held that the trial court had erred in dismissing the defendants' application and that the plaint was liable to be returned.
The Court allowed the civil revision petition and passed the following directions:
“The interlocutory application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. However, having regard to the express provisions contained in Rule 10A of Order VII, the matter stands remitted to the learned 9th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, only to enable the plaintiffs to file an application in terms of clause (2) of Rule 10A of Order VII.”
It further directed:
“For that purpose, the parties herein are directed to appear before the learned 9th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on 02.04.2025, without further notice.”
The Court added that if such an application is filed, it shall be decided in accordance with law, and if no application is filed, the plaint shall be returned. Finally, the Bench ordered:
“Copy of this order shall be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice, for further action against the learned judge.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Senior Counsel; Chintan Chinnappa M., Advocate
For the Respondents: Shyam Sundar M.S., Senior Counsel; B.K.S. Sanjay, Advocate
Case Title: Sammaan Capital Limited and Another v. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2025
Bench: Justice R. Devdas
[Read/Download order]
