- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 40 OF 2019 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. MR GANGADHARA GOWDA S/O. AYYANA GOWDA, R/AT SAI PRASANA, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, BELTHANGADY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SARAVANA S .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR HARISH POONJA S/O. MUTHANNA POONJA, R/AT MITHILA NILAYA, GARDADY POST AND VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY, D.K …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF THE CPC., AGAINST ORDER DATED 03.01.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.VIII IN OS NO.2/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELTHANGADI.D.K. DISMISSING THE IA NO.VIII FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11[d] OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AS BARRED IN VIEW OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS ACT, 2015. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Saravana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Deepak S. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.2/2018 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Belthangadi. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs only) with interest at 12% for damages. 4. The cause of action paragraph in the plaint reads as under: "IV. The cause of action has arisen on 02.05.2018 when the offensive, defamatory, inflammatory and false speech made by the defendant in Congress Rally at Ambedkar Bhavan, Belthangady, D.K., and subsequently at Belthangady, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 5. The reason for the claim of damages is mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 6 which reads as under: " 2. The plaintiff is a very popular and reputed person and by sheer hard work and meritorious social service to the members of his constituency and Society in general, has been selected as MLA candidate of BJP from Belthangady Constituency in the upcoming election. His work for his constituency has been acknowledged by citizens of Belthangady Constituency. Due to his resounding popularity amongst electorates and citizens in general of Belthangady Asseinbly Constituency, he was selected as MLA candidate by the BJP. 3. The defendant originally belonged to Indian National Congress Party and he was M.L.A from Belthangady Constituency and also held the office of Cabinet Minister of Karnataka State during congress regime in carly 1980's. However, due to intra-political rivalry within congress party he switched over to B.J.P about a few days back. His son Mr.Ranjan Gowda was B.J.P M.L.A candidate from Belthanday constituency during last assembly election held in the year 2013. He has suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of Congress Candidate Mr.Vasantha Bangera, in the said election. According to the information to the plaintiff the defendant was ticket aspirant from B.J.P for the Belthangady constituency to the upcoming election to Karnataka State Legislative Assembly, scheduled to be held on 12-05-2018. However, he was given the ticket by the B.J.P instead it - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 has preferred the plaintiff as its candidate from Belthangady constituency. 4. The defendant appears to have got offended very badly denial of M.L.A ticket to him by the B.J.P in the upcoming assembly election of Karnataka State. Eversince the ticket was given to the plaintiff, the defendant appears to be sulking under denial of M.L.A ticket by B.J.P. Finally he has quit the B.J.P and joined the congress party on 02-05-2018. In the eve of his joining the congress party on that day, the defendant and his supporters have held congress rally on 02-05-2018 at a place called "Ambedkar Bhavana" at Belthangady. In the said rally as a austrated and desperate person he has spoken extreme ill against the plaintiff composed with highly false, baseless, defamatory, scandalous, venomous and malicious facts in Kannada Language. The speech of the defendant has been recorded and made viral in social media by him and his supporters. The contents of the speech of the defendant pertaining to the plaintiff are transferred through the computer to Compact Disc. The contents thereof have been reduced into writing in Kannada Language as hereunder: "ಕಎ ಾರು ಅದರ ಪ ಾಪ ಾಲ ೆಎ ಕಾಟಕದ ೊಡ ಹಗರಣ ಆಯು, ಾೊಂದು $ವಸ ನ() ಕುಾ* ಅವರ ಮೆಯ ೆಹಯ ಇದ- ಉ/0ೆಯ ಒಂದು 2ೆಣು3 ಮಗಳ5 67ದಳ5 ಅ ಏನಮ9 ಎಂದು ೇ(ಾಗ ಉ/0ೆಯ ;ೆ<ೈ ನ>?@ೆ ೇA 2ಾ6ೆ ಸು ೕB ೋC Dೆ ಬಂ$ೆ ಅಂತ. ಇಾGರು - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 ಇ$-ೕH ಅಂತ ೇ(ದ ರಂಗಮೂIಯವರು ಇಾ-0ೆ, ಅದಲೆ 5 -6 ಜನ ಉತರ ಕಾಟಕದವರು ಇಾ-0ೆ ನ>?@ೆ ೇA 2ಾ6ಾ-0ೆ. ಾನು ಅದನುK I(ದುೊಂಡ ಏLದು ೇಸು ಅಂತ ಅMಾಗ Nೆಳಂಗ Oಾಲೂ6ನ ಈQನ RSೆ ಅಭGU ಆತನ ಕಮಾಂಡ ಅದು ಅಂತ, ಒಂದು ಎರಡು ರೂಪV ಅಲ ೋಟGಂತರ ರೂWಾVಗಳ5, ಅೆXಂC ಕYೕಷನ* ಗ(Dೆ, ಸ[ಷ\ ಕಮ]ಯ\ ^ಾ6Dೆ, ಇOಾG$ಗ(Dೆ ಇವರು ೋ_ ಈಗ ಸು ೕB ೋC Lಂದ ಆಡ* ಆQೆ ತL`ೆ ಆDೋಕು ಅಂತ ಅದನುK ಾHಂದಲೂ Lಸಲು ಾಧGbಲ, ಅದರ ತL`ೆ ಆದ0ೆ ೆಎ ಅcಾHಗಳ5 SೈDೆ 2ೋDಾ0ೆ, ಅವರು 2ೇdೆeೕಾಗುOೆ ನಮ9 ಇಂತ ಏSೆಂC Iಂ$ಾ-0ೆ ಅಂತ ಇನವ SೈDೆ 2ೋಗುOಾೆ, ಏSೆಂC Iಂ$ಾ-ನ ಅಂತ ತL`ೆಾೆ ಇವLಗೂ ಕೂಡ ೈDೆ ೋಳ 2ಾ6 ಎdೆe7ಂಡು 2ೊDೋದು DಾGರಂf. ಇನೂK ಜಾದನ 0ೆಯ _ೕಲ gದು ಅಯೂ ಕೂಡ ೋf ೋf ೋ_ ವಂಚೆ ಾ, ಂNಾವ(Dೆ ವಂಚೆ ಾ ಎ ಾರತ ಹಣ ಇರುತೋ ಅದರ Mಾಸೆ gದು ಾV Mಾಸೆ gದ 2ಾDೆ ಅ 2ಾಜHರುOಾ0ೆ ಅವರು. ಅ ಅದನುK ೋ_ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಾನು ಎರಡು ವಷ$ಂದ ೋಡುIೆ-ೕನ ಪ Iiಂದು ೇMಾಾjನಗಳ ಬ ಹ9ಕಲಶ ಅಂOೆ, ಪlನ* ಪ ImಾnಪೆಯಂOೆ, ಇನೂK ಏನೂ ಒಂದು ೊಡ ಾಯಕ ಮವಂOೆ 0ಾಜ6ೕಯಕೂ7 ಇದಕೂ7 ಏನು ಸಂಬಂಧ ಅದು ೊಡ ಸಂಚು ರೂತು 0ಾಜ6ೕಯದ, ಬ ಹ9ಕಲಶ ಾವl ಕೂಡ ಾoೇMೆ,ಾವl ಕೂಡ ೇವಾjನ ಕfXೆ-ೕವ ಆದ0ೆ ಾವl Nೊಗಳ ಾಕ 2ೋDೊ$ಲ. ಅಧಾHೕಶpರ ೇವಾjನ ಈDಾಗ@ೆ ಒಂದು ೋf ರೂWಾV Nೇಕು ಾನು ಕfXದ-ೆ7 ಇಂದNೆಟುXbನ. ಾನು ;ಾಸಕಾQಾ-ಗ ಬಂDಾರಪ[ನವರು ಮುಖGಮಂI ಾQದ-ರು ಆಗ ಆ0ಾಧನ ಮ9 ಗು(ಗ, ಪಂಜು, ಾHಯಮ9, ಇOಾG$Dೆ ೋfಗಟX@ೆ ೊfXೆ-ೕMೆ ಹ(rDೆ ೇವಾjನ, ಗು ಕಟXಲು. /ೕ<ೋಾsರೆ7. ಇದು ಏನಪ[ ಇವದು oೊಂಬ0ಾಟ ಅಂತ Idೆe7ಂoೆ ಇವHDೆ ಹಣ ೊಡುವವರು, ೊಡ ೊಡ ೇವಾjನೆ7 ಹಣ ೊಡುವವರು, ಜನಗಳ5 ಇವರನುK Dೌರವ ಅಧGuಾQ ಾಡುMಾಗ ನನDೆ 0ಾಜ6ೕಯದ Mಾಸೆ ಬಂತು ನB ಜನ ಇಷುX 6ೕಳ5 ಮಟXದ 0ಾಜಾರಣ ಾoಾರಂತ ಾನು Idೆe7ಂರಲ. ನಮ9ೊಂದು Dಾೆ ಇೆ Yೕನು gೆ ಸಮೂದದ gNೇಕಂOೆ, ಉvೆwಯ gNಾದಂOೆ. ಇವರು ಾವ ಮಟXಕೂ7 0ೆ. ಇವತು NೊಂNೈನ 0ೆಡKC ಏHಾ ಇೆ Lೕವl ೋ67\ಲ ಆ ಏHಾ ನoೆಸುವವರು ೋfಗಟX@ೆ ಹಣ ಇೆ ನB Nೆಳಂಗ OಾಲೂಕನುK OೆDೆದುೊಳ5rವಷುX ಹಣ ಇೆ. ಅವರು ಇ ಬಂದು ಬ ಹ9ಕಲಶ ಾೆ ಏಾಗುOೆ ಅವತ ಹಣ ಇೆಯಂತ ಅbDೆ ಶರ<ಾಗIಾQ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 ೇವಾjನಗಳ ಬ ಹ9ಕಲಶ, /ೕ<ೋಾsರ... bMೇಾನಂದರು ಏನು 2ೇ(ಾ-0ೆ RSೆಯವರು ಅವರ ಆದಶ Wಾಸುವವರು Lೕವl ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವ ೈVಂದ ಹಣ ಪNೇ, ಇದು ೆಲಸನೂ ಇಲ ಾಯಕನೂ ಇಲ ಕಮನೂ ಇಲ ಅಧಮದ 2ಾ$ಯ ೇವಲ ಚುಾವ<ೆ >ೕ@ೆ ಕx3ಟುX ಅವತು ಾವl Nೇ6ತು ಅರುವತು ಮತ ತDೊdೆerೕೆ RSೆಯDೆ ನನKನುK ೆಹDೆ ಕHದು NೆಂಗಳeHDೆ ಕHದು ;ೆyೕಭಕರಂಾSೆ, ನ() ಕುಾ* ಕfೕ\, ಯಯೂರಪ[, ಇದು Lೕವ ಅಭGU ಆDೋಕು ಅಂದು ಾನು 0ಾಜ6ೕಯ$ಂದ NಾH ದೂರbದ- ಅzವೃ$s ಾಯ ಏನಂತ DೊIೆ. Nೆಳಂಗ Oಾಲೂ6ನ ಾHಗೂ ಾಧGbಲ ಅಂತಹ b|ಾGಸಂೆj ಕfXೆ-ೕೆ. ಾಲ ಾ ಕfXೆ-ೕೆ, ಾನು ಕೃ] ಾದ @ೋನK ಕfXೆ-ೕೆ ೋ^ಾGಂತರ ರೂWಾVಯ ಸಂೆjಾQ Nೆಳ$ೆ. ಾ}?ರ$ಂದ ಕಾGಕುಾHVಂದ bಾGUಗಳ5 ಬಂದು ಓದುIಾ-0ೆ. 100 ರೂWಾVಂದ ಅ9ಷ) 5 Hಂದ 6 ಾbರ bಾGUಗಳ5 ಇಾ-0ೆ. ೆಲಸೆ7 ಜನ ಇಾ-0ೆ. Rೕ$ 0ಾಜ6ೕಯ ಾ ನನDೆ DೊIಲ. 2ೋ0ಾಟ$ಂದ ಬಂದವನು, ಬಡವHDೆ ಭೂY ೊಡುವ ಮx3ನ 2ೋ0ಾಟ$ಂದ ಬಂದವನು ಅೇ HೕI ಬದುಕುIೆ-ೕೆ . 0ಾಜ6ೕಯಾ7Q oೊಂಬ0ಾಟ ಾ, ಾHಗೂ ಶರ<ಾಗI /ೕವನ ನoೆಸುವl$ಲ ಅಂತಹ ಪHjI ಇಲ, ಇರುವ ಸಂದಭದ ನನKನುK ;ಾಸಕಾQ Lಲಲು ಆೆ OೋH ಾನು ಅದೆ7ಲ ತುಪ[ 2ಾಕುವವನಲ 0ಾI NೆಳDಾಗುವಷXರ ಾHDೆ DೊIರಲ. ಅ ಪ •ಾಕರ ಬಂDೇರ ಇದು ಅbDೆ ೊಡಬಹು$ತು ಅವHಗೂ DೊIಲ ಇಂತ ಒಂದು 0ಾಜ6ೕಯ ಾಡುವವHDೆ.... 5. The speech made by the defendant reflects his regressive mindset and desperation due to denial of B.J.P MLA ticket to him by the party and according the ticket to the plaintiff. In order to malign and scandalize his image in the eyes of electorates and general public with malicious intention to defeat him in the 2018 State Election, the defendant has spoken very bad against the plaintiff which are far from truth besides manufactured ones. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 6. It is very pertinent to note that the reputation and respect of a person is more valuable than anything else to him in the whole world. If the plaintiff is scandalized and maligned by false, defamatory and malicious campaign through oral speech or in the form of printing and circulating such speech, the plaintiff will not be able to salvage his reputation and respect in the society he is living in. The defendant has made false imputations as aforesaid against the plaintiff to bring him disrepute and disrespect in the eyes of electorates and thereby defeat him in the upcoming election for having denied the M.L.A ticket to him by the B.J.P and granting the ticket to the plaintiff by the B.J.P." 6. Defendant after entering appearance before the Trial Court, filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. 7. Defendant also filed I.A.No.8 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in view of the establishment of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division High Courts' Act, 2015 and sought for rejection of the plaint. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 8. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing detailed objections. 9. Learned Trial judge after hearing the parties, recorded a categorical finding that the nature of suit seeking damages against the individual, at no stretch of imagination can be termed as a commercial dispute in terms of Section 2(i)(c) of the Commercial Courts' Act and dismissed I.A. No.8. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this court in this Revision Petition on the following grounds: In an adversarial litigation, it is based on the contentions raised by the parties that the court has to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner/defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC was not opposed as coming within the scheme of commercial dispute but contention was that the suit has to be transferred to Commercial Court. The court has traversed beyond the contentions of both parties in passing an order which is not permissible and therefore, the order requires to be interfered with. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 The Trial Court proceeds on the basis that under Section 2 (1) (c) which defines a commercial dispute, the suit of the present nature does not come within the purview of commercial dispute. The explanation was also referred indicating that wherever it involves action for recovery of money, it may be even out of the immovable property which still comes within the meaning of Commercial Suit. Therefore, it is widely worded that any action involving recovery of money even if it is to be from an immovable property would constitute a Commercial suit. However, the same has been misunderstood by the court below that the explanation relates to a dispute relating to immovable property which is wholly fallacious. 11. Sri. Saravana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that even though the suit is filed by an individual against another individual, the nature of dispute as could be seen from the plaint averments itself could par take the nature of commercial dispute. Therefore, Civil Courts did not have the jurisdiction and sought for allowing the revision petition and consequently dismissed its suit. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 12. Per contra, Sri. Deepak Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides this court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, as could be seen from the plaint averments, all that the plaintiff is seeking is a decree for damages in terms of Rs.1,10,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs only) from the defendant for having tarnished the image of the plaintiff. 15. Admittedly, the suit is filed by one individual against another individual and cause of action paragraph and the plaint averments would make it amply clear that it is not a commercial dispute and it is a private dispute between the two individuals. 16. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge dismissing I.A.No.8 holding that the dispute cannot be traced into the definition clause of commercial dispute as is mentioned in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42960 CRP No. 40 of 2019 Section 2 (i)(c) of the Commercial Courts' Act is just and proper which requires no interference in this revisional jurisdiction. 17. Hence, following order: ORDER Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 ct:sg