A trial court may return a plaint to prevent conflicting judgments when a related commercial suit is pending in a commercial court.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant-plaintiff has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court on I.A.2/2024 in OS No.25517/24.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court has invoked the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC though the interim application was filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC by the defendant to reject the plaint and by passing the impugned order it is directed to return the suit plaint to the plaintiff to present the same before the notified commercial court within 30 days from the date of the order.

3. It is the grievance of the appellant before this Court that, the impugned order suffers from material irregularities and as the plaintiff has filed a suit for bear injunction, it is the Civil Court which has got the jurisdiction to try the said suit. Counsel for appellant submits that by filing the suit in OS No.25517/24, the plaintiff has sought for relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from removing the fixtures, fittings, furniture and any other movable and immovable properties from the suit schedule property and also an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from damaging the structures, walls, flooring, roofing, staircases and washrooms in the suit schedule property.

4. No doubt, Section 9 of CPC speaks with regard to the cognizance of the suits of civil nature. This section says that, suits of civil nature are cognizable by Civil Court. It is an admitted fact that, already Commercial Suit in OS No.1127/24 is filed which is pending on the file of 83^rd Addl. Commercial Court (CCH.84) seeking the relief of eviction and arrears of rent. The said suit is between the same parties. Subject matter of the said suit and the subject matter of this suit in OSNo.25117/2024 is one and the same.

5. Learned counsel for defendant-respondent submits that, when a suit is pending before the Commercial Court, a separate suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court seeking the relief of bare injunction. Before filing the suit in OS No.25117/24 as the said suit was not maintainable, defendant rightly filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. He would thus submit that, though the application was filed for rejection of the plaint, by exercising its discretionary power, the learned trial Judge has returned the plaint to be presented before the Commercial Court as other connected case is pending.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent is fair enough to submit that, being aggrieved by the said order of allowing the application in part, respondent has not filed any separate appeal, thereby, respondent is satisfied with the order of return of plaint to present the same before the appropriate Court.

7. While deciding the said application, the learned trial Court has relied on the provisions of Section 2 of Commercial Courts Act , 2015 as `Commercial Dispute' so also it has discussed with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts. It is the opinion of the trial Court that, though the suit is of civil nature but, the connected suit is pending on the file of Commercial Court, as lis between the parties is of a commercial nature, it has passed an order to return the plaint instead of rejecting the plaint.

8. Further, the learned trial Court has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported inILR 2015 KAR 415 in the case ofM/s.Vasudeva Rao & Sons and Another vs. Smt.Pratiba Devi. In the said judgment, this Court has held that, when the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, Order VII Rule 10 of CPC comes into operation for return of plaint. Even i