Karnataka High Court Orders Probe & Action Against Trial Judge Who Cited Non-Existing SC Judgments

The Karnataka High Court has directed to conduct a probe and take appropriate action against a trial court judge who relied on non-existing judgments on the records of the respective courts to pass an order rejecting the application filed for the return of plaint.Justice R Devdas said, “What is more disturbing is the fact that the learned judge of City Civil Court has cited two decisions which were never decided by the Apex Court or any other Court. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. This act on the part of the learned judge would require further probe and appropriate action in accordance with law.” It added “Copy of this order shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for further action against the learned judge.” The petitioners, Sammaan Capital Limited, a Non-Banking Finance Company had questioned the order of the trial court dated November 25, 2024, by which the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil procedure Code, seeking return of plaint filed by Mantri Infrastructure Private Limited, came to be rejected.Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, appearing for the petitioner, had submitted “The judgment cites supreme court orders which are non existent...if such non existent judgments are relied upon..it's really a sorry state of affairs..sometimes AI generated research..gives such wrong conclusions”. The petitioners claimed that the Trial Court in the impugned order relied upon the following judgments:a. M/s. Jalan Trading Co., Pvt. Ltd., Vs Millenium Telecom Ltd. Civil Appeal No.5860/2010 (Hon'ble Supreme Court)b. M/s. Kvalrner Cimentation India Ltd., Vs M/s, Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.6074/2018 (Hon'ble Supreme Court)c. M/s. S.K.Gopal Vs M/s. UNI Deritend Ltd., (CS (Comm) 1114/2016 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court)It was claimed in the plea that the above-mentioned manufactured judgments are the sole basis and reasoning given by the Trial Court for rejecting the plea of the Defendants that the suit involves commercial disputes and comes under the jurisdiction of a commercial court.The bench on going through the records, noted that the application filed by the defendants to return the plaint should have been allowed, for more than one reason. It said “Firstly, the plaintiffs who had earlier filed a Commercial Suit, did not seek leave of the Court while withdrawing the same, to present the suit before the civil court. Secondly, the plaintiffs are admittedly aggrieved of the demand notices issued by the defendants and such demand notices were issued only to some of the plaintiffs. Therefore, only those plaintiffs to whom demand notices were issued are aggrieved and they are entitled to seek relief at the hands of the competent court. Such of the plaintiffs could not have included some other entities to whom the defendants had not issued notices, to seek redressal of their grievance.” It added “It is unacceptable that the entities who had earlier filed a Commercial Suit, would withdraw the suit, without liberty and thereafter filed a suit before the civil court impleading some other entities to whom admittedly notices were not issued by the defendants. This is an ingenious method adopted by the plaintiffs seeking to maintain a suit before a court which had no jurisdiction.” Allowing the civil revision petition the court held “The interlocutory application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. However, having regard to the express provisions contained in Rule 10A of Order VII, the matter stands remitted to the learned 9th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, only to enable the plaintiffs to file an application in terms of clause(2) of Rule 10A of Order VII.” It clarified that “If an application is accordingly filed by the plaintiffs, the learned judge shall pass necessary orders in accordance with Rule 10A of Order VII. If no such application is filed by the plaintiffs on the said date, the plaint shall stand returned to the plaintiffs.” Appearance: Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi a/w Advocate Chintan Chinnappa M For Petitioners.Senior Advocate Shyam Sundar M S A/W Advocate B.K.S Sanjay for R1 TO R9Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 121Case Title: SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED AND MANTRI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD & OthersCase No: CRP 49/2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka High Court Orders Probe & Action Against Trial Judge Who Cited Non-Existing SC Judgments

Mustafa Plumber

Tags