- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11693 CRP No. 231 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 231 OF 2014 BETWEEN: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, FORMERLY VYSYA BANK LTD., HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO. 22, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.V. SATISH, ADVOCATE) AND: BANK OF BARODA, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BARODA, CORPORATE OFFICE AT BARODA CORPORATE, 26, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI - 499 051, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NATASHA N. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.7.2013 PASSED IN EX.NO.1576/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11693 CRP No. 231 of 2014 DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 11 C.P.C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER It is rather unfortunate that such matters are kept pending for more than ten years before this Court, whence the petitioner/bank is only contending that it is aggrieved of certain observations made in the impugned order, which will prejudice the rights of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that paragraph No.26 of the impugned order it is held as follows: "26……………….....Admittedly the judgment in O.S.No.358/92 by the 3rd Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Sec'bad wad passed on 31.12.2007 whereas the judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court of London was delivered on 20.02.1995. Therefore the question of brining to the notice of judgment passed in O.S.No.358/92 before the Hon'ble High Court of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11693 CRP No. 231 of 2014 Justice Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court of London does not arise at all." 3. It the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that these observations will come in the way of the petitioner/bank, which is contesting the matter before the High Court of Telangana and an Original Application No.111/2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court such an observation that the judgment in O.S.No.358/1992 was rendered on 31.07.2007 and whereas the judgment of the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench, Division Commercial Court at London was delivered on 20.02.1995 and therefore, the question of bringing to the notice of the Queen's Bench the order passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, did not arise, would not prejudice the case of the petitioner in anyway. Nevertheless, it would be trite in law that during the course of any proceedings, if certain observations are made which may have a bearing in a subsequent suit or proceedings initiated by one of the parties such observations should not be considered by the subsequent Court, as it may prejudice the rights of a particular party. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11693 CRP No. 231 of 2014 5. Consequently, the civil revision petition stands disposed of while directing that any observation in the impugned order touching upon the merits of the matter shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties in subsequent proceedings. ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv CT: BHK