Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court has directed a probe and necessary action against a City Civil Court judge for relying on non-existent judgments to reject an application filed for the return of a plaint  under Order VII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

A Single judge bench comprising Justice R. Devdas, allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Sammaan Capital Limited and Sammaan Finserve Limited, further remitting the case back to the trial court to facilitate compliance with procedural requirements.

The trial court judge had cited two judgments, namely M/s. Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., /vs./ Millenium Telecom Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.5860/2010 and another case in Ms.Kvalrner Cemintation India Ltd., /vs./ M/s.Achil Builders Pvt.Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.6074/2018, allegedly delivered by the Supreme Court. However, it came to light that these judgments were never delivered by the apex court.

The High Court, expressing grave concern over the trial court’s conduct, observed: “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. 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 petitioners, Sammaan Capital Limited and Sammaan Finserve Limited, had approached the High Court to challenge the order of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, challenging the trial court's order dated November 25, 2024. The trial court had rejected the company’s application under Order VII Rule 10, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking the return of a plaint filed by Mantri Infrastructure Private Limited and eight other entities, arguing that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit as it involved a commercial dispute under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi, appearing for the petitioners, highlighted the irregularities in the trial court’s decision, submitting that “the learned judge seems to have cited a non-existent decision to back the impugned judgment.” It was further contended that “no such decision is rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.”

The respondents (plaintiffs in the trial court) had earlier filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, challenging notices issued by the petitioners for the invocation of pledged shares. However, they withdrew the commercial suit without seeking leave to approach the City Civil Court. Subsequently, they filed a similar suit before the City Civil Court, including additional entities as plaintiffs.

Emphasising that the plaint should have been returned by the trial court as the suit was not maintainable before the City Civil Court, the court stated: “Firstly, the plaintiffs who had earlier filed a Commercial Suit, did not seek leave of the Court while withdrawing the same, to present the suit before the civil court. Secondly, the plaintiffs are admittedly aggrieved of the demand notices issued by the defendants and such demand notices were issued only to some of the plaintiffs. Therefore, 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.”

The court found that the respondents’ act of withdrawing the commercial suit and filing a fresh suit before the City Civil Court with additional plaintiffs was an “ingenious method” to bypass jurisdictional limitations. “It is unacceptable that the entities who had earlier filed a Commercial Suit, would withdraw the suit, without liberty and thereafter filed a suit before the civil court impleading some other entities to whom admittedly notices were not issued by the defendants,” the court noted.

Conclusively, the court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial court’s order. Additionally, it directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice for initiating appropriate action against the trial court judge.

 

Cause Title: Sammaan Capital Limited vs. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others [CRP 49/2025]

Appearance: For Petitioners- Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi, assisted by Advocate Chintan Chinnappa M.; For Respondents- Senior Advocate Shyam Sundar M.S., assisted by Advocate B.K.S. Sanjay.