- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42616 WP No. 8919 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 8919 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S DO-ALL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO.87/12, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. B.N. RAGHURAM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MURTHY M.V, ADV.) AND: M/S PRASMO AGRI A PROPERTARY CONCERN TS NO.2123, 1ST FLOOR MAC TOWER, SHANTHI NAGAR TANJORE DISTRICT DUMBAKONAM - 612 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.M.PRASANA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRADEEP C YADAV, ADV.) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 06.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-86) (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU ON IA NO.1, IN O.S.NO.5483/2018 VIDE ANNX-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42616 WP No. 8919 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Court of LXXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-86) (Commercial Court), Bengaluru, on IA No.1 in OS No.5483/2018. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Office has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in view of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against an order passed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, rejecting the plaint, the party aggrieved is required to file an appeal as provided under Section 96 of CPC, since any order passed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC would amount to a decree. But in the present case, the order has been passed by the Trial Court in exercise of its powers under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and not under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42616 WP No. 8919 of 2021 5. Perusal of the order impugned would go to show that application IA No.1 was filed by the defendant with a prayer to reject the plaint for the reason that the Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has held that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly, has directed the Registry to return the plaint to the plaintiff, who in turn is directed to represent the plaint within 60 days from the date of the order. 6. From a reading of the order impugned, it is apparent that the order impugned has been passed by the Trial Court in exercise of its powers under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and not in exercise of its powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. As against any order passed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, party aggrieved has a remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of CPC. Therefore, the petitioner is required to avail the said remedy and cannot maintain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy as provided under the law. 7. All contentions urged in this writ petition are left open. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42616 WP No. 8919 of 2021 8. It is needless to state that petitioner is always at liberty to explain the delay in the proposed appeal by stating about the pendency of this petition, which is filed assailing the impugned order. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44