- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23013 MFA No. 4734 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4734 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: BHAVIN TOLIA S/O SHARAD CHANDULAL TOLIA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A 15, HOSAKEREHALLI ROAD BYATARAYANAPURA, MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560 084 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SKANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.D. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. CENTRAL RESTAURANT AND CAFE A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.130 KHB COLONY, 17TH H MAIN MIG, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU- 560 095 REP. BY ITS PARTNER 2. MR. MOHAMMED SHABAZ S/O MOHAMMED ANWAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A NO.26/A, 6TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, MINAJ NAGAR KADIRENAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560 078 Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23013 MFA No. 4734 of 2025 3. MR. MOHAMMED AFSHAN S/O MOHAMMED ALIJAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A NO.13-6, J.J. RESIDENCY 4TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 3RD BLOCK, EAST RBI EXTENSION BYRASANDRA, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU- 560 011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.14.03.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25517/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, (CCH-73), PARTLY ALLOWING U/O.VII RULE 11 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant-plaintiff has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court on I.A.2/2024 in OS No.25517/24. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court has invoked the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23013 MFA No. 4734 of 2025 of CPC though the interim application was filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC by the defendant to reject the plaint and by passing the impugned order it is directed to return the suit plaint to the plaintiff to present the same before the notified commercial court within 30 days from the date of the order. 3. It is the grievance of the appellant before this Court that, the impugned order suffers from material irregularities and as the plaintiff has filed a suit for bear injunction, it is the Civil Court which has got the jurisdiction to try the said suit. Counsel for appellant submits that by filing the suit in OS No.25517/24, the plaintiff has sought for relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from removing the fixtures, fittings, furniture and any other movable and immovable properties from the suit schedule property and also an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from damaging the structures, walls, flooring, roofing, staircases and washrooms in the suit schedule property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23013 MFA No. 4734 of 2025 4. No doubt, Section 9 of CPC speaks with regard to the cognizance of the suits of civil nature. This section says that, suits of civil nature are cognizable by Civil Court. It is an admitted fact that, already Commercial Suit in OS No.1127/24 is filed which is pending on the file of 83rd Addl. Commercial Court (CCH.84) seeking the relief of eviction and arrears of rent. The said suit is between the same parties. Subject matter of the said suit and the subject matter of this suit in OSNo.25117/2024 is one and the same. 5. Learned counsel for defendant-respondent submits that, when a suit is pending before the Commercial Court, a separate suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court seeking the relief of bare injunction. Before filing the suit in OS No.25117/24 as the said suit was not maintainable, defendant rightly filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. He would thus submit that, though the application was filed for rejection of the plaint, by exercising its - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23013 MFA No. 4734 of 2025 discretionary power, the learned trial Judge has returned the plaint to be presented before the Commercial Court as other connected case is pending. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent is fair enough to submit that, being aggrieved by the said order of allowing the application in part, respondent has not filed any separate appeal, thereby, respondent is satisfied with the order of return of plaint to present the same before the appropriate Court. 7. While deciding the said application, the learned trial Court has relied on the provisions of Section 2 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as `Commercial Dispute' so also it has discussed with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts. It is the opinion of the trial Court that, though the suit is of civil nature but, the connected suit is pending on the file of Commercial Court, as lis between the parties is of a commercial nature, it has passed an order to return the plaint instead of rejecting the plaint. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23013 MFA No. 4734 of 2025 8. Further, the learned trial Court has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2015 KAR 415 in the case of M/s.Vasudeva Rao & Sons and Another vs. Smt.Pratiba Devi. In the said judgment, this Court has held that, when the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, Order VII Rule 10 of CPC comes into operation for return of plaint. Even it has been made clear in the said order that, even the pending suits also be transferred under Section 15(2) of the Act to the Commercial Courts where the commercial suit is instituted nor the suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and the said provision is prospective in nature. 9. Order VII Rule 10 specifically says that, the plaint shall be returned at any stage of the suit to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Suit pending before the Commercial Court in OS No.1127/24 is commercial in nature and there is no fetter for the plaintiff to seek relief by filing appropriate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23013 MFA No. 4734 of 2025 application, instead, the plaintiff has filed Civil Suit before the Civil Court. 10. As observed by the trial Court, if the plaint is returned and presented before the proper Court, it avoids conflicting judgments and also multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, in view of well-reasoned order of the trial Court, I do not find any factual or legal error committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that, the interim order is in force till this date. Accordingly, interim order is extended for a period of three weeks from today. The plaintiff is granted three weeks time to present the plaint before the Commercial Court where OS No.1127/24, is pending. No order as to costs. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1