- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.34590 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S.COMMON THREADS PARTNERSHIP FIRM (PAN NO.AAFFC1918G) OFFICE AT 121-122, 2ND CROSS TELECOM LAYOUT SRIRAMPURA, JAKKUR POST BENGALURU-560 038 REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR.MICHAEL PIERS 2. MRS.SMITHA ZACHARIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O.MICHAEL PIERS R/AT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS DEFENCE COLONY INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038 3. MR.MICHAEL PIERS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O.M.C.PIERS R/AT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS DEFENCE COLONY INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI ROHIT FOR SMT.UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 AND: MR.C.GANESH NARAYAN S/O.LATE C.V.NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.44, OSBORNE ROAD ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 042 … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SAMEEKSHA PATIL FOR SMT.KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7263/2024 BY XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard Sri S.Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners-defendants and Smt.Sameeksha Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-plaintiff. 2. This petition is filed by the defendants aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.7263/2024 by XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 3. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants under Order XXXVII for a summary trial. Learned trial Judge issued suit summons to the defendants through RPAD. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant No.2 filed IA.No.III under Order VII Rules 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is commercial in nature and it is brought before the Commercial Court. Defendant No.2 also filed IA.No.IV under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to delete her from the array of the parties. On 04.06.2025, the plaintiff approached this Court in WP.No.15840/2025 seeking quashment of the order dated 22.02.2025 with a direction to the trial Court to issue fresh summons under Form No.4 of Appendix B of CPC for conduct of summary trial and not a regular trial. However, this Court allowed the said writ petition and the matter was remitted back for issuance of summons in a proper manner as contemplated under the summary suit procedure. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 4. Upon receipt of the order of this Court, the trial Court, vide its order dated 10.10.2025, ordered for issuance of suit summons to the defendants for judgment in Form No.4-A of Appendix B of CPC returnable by 04.11.2025. 5. On 04.11.2025, defendant No.2, who received summons under Form No.4 of Appendix B of CPC of the summary suit, despite an order being made for Form No.4-A of Appendix B of CPC, on the very day, defendant No.2 filed vakalath and served a letter upon the plaintiff, intimating appearance in the matter and filed a memo stating that copy of the plaint along with annexure is not produced as per the procedure laid down. It is this order dated 04.11.2025 i.e. questioned by the petitioners- defendants before this Court. 6. Sri S.Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Udita Ramesh for petitioners vehemently contends that the procedure followed by learned trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 Judge is not correct and is irregular and not in accordance with procedure in summary suit proceedings as contemplated under Order XXXVII of CPC. Therefore, he contends that the order impugned requires to be set-aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel takes me to the provisions of Order XXXVII Rules 3(4) and 3(5) of CPC. 6.1 Learned Senior Counsel submits that he has also filed review petition before the very same Court for reconsideration of this irregularity and wrong procedures followed by the trial Court, which he submits would withdraw. 6.2 His submission is placed on record. The review petition filed by the defendants before the trial Court is hereby withdrawn. The same shall not be considered as it is stated to be withdrawn. The trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff fairly agrees that there is an error committed by the trial Court in issuance of summons in Form No.4-A rather than Form No.4. Therefore, she contends that she would not have any objection in the petition being allowed and the matter being remitted back to the trial Court to follow the proper procedure as contemplated under Order XXXVII of CPC. 8. In the present case on hand, the defendants have already entered appearance. The next process and the procedure to be followed is issuance of Form No.4-A as contemplated in Appendix B of CPC, which got issued by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the next procedure to be followed would be under Order XXXVII Rules 3(4) and 3(5) of CPC. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Order XXXVII Rules 3(4) and 3(5) as under: "3. Procedure for the appearance of defendant.─ (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 (4) If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff shall thereafter serve on the defendant a summons for judgment in Form No. 4-A in Appendix B or such other Form as may be prescribed from time to time, returnable not less than ten days from the date of service supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and stating that in his belief there is no defence to the suit. (5) The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court of Judge to be just: Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is satisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant do not indicate that he has a substantial defence to raise or that the defence intended to be put up by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 Provided further that, where a part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in Court." 9. Under this circumstance, this Court finds force and valid contents in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for petitioners-defendants and fair acceptance by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff, so also, in view of the provisions of the summary procedure laid down under Order XXXVII of CPC, the procedure will have to be followed in a letter and spirit. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This petition is allowed; ii) The impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.7263/2024 by XXIV Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set-aside; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53441 WP No. 34590 of 2025 iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for issuance of fresh summons under Form No.4-A of Appendix B of CPC; iv) It is needless to mention that the procedure as contemplated by the trial Court to be followed by the defendants. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38