Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33791
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
MR.C.GANESH NARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
M/S. COMMON THREADS PARTNERSHIP FIRM – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.15840 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) | OS No. 7263 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Dhananjay V. Joshi, Smt. Krutika Raghavan
For the Respondents: Sri S. Srivatsa, Smt. Udita Ramesh
The court reiterated that procedural compliance with Order XXXVII of the CPC is mandatory, necessitating issuance of summary summons in Form No. 4 for summary suits to protect plaintiffs' rights effectively.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXVII - Summary suits - Issuance of summons in Form No. 1 instead of Form No. 4 for summary trial - Court must adhere strictly to the procedural requirements of Order XXXVII which mandates issuance of summons in Form No. 4 to ensure proper conduct of summary trials. The concerned court's failure to issue the correct form of summons has led to an erroneous conversion of the summary suit into a regular suit, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's rights. (Paras 12 and 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff engaged in the gems and jewelry business loaned substantial amounts to the defendants over thirteen years, leading to disputes about repayments. He sought a summary trial under Order XXXVII but the court issued regular suit summons instead, prompting the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The order for issuing summons in Form No. 1 is quashed, and the case is remitted for further proceedings in accordance with proper procedures specified for summary suits.
Issues: 1) Correct form for issuing summons in summary suits; 2) Whether the court can decide maintainability prior to issuing appropriate summons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of following the specific procedure for summary suits under Order XXXVII, asserting the need for summons in Form No. 4 to respect the rights of the plaintiff and facilitate swift resolution of commercial cases. Misapplication of procedural rules can mislead the nature of the suit.
Result: Writ petition allowed; previous order quashed; matter remitted to lower court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the dispute over loan and repayment (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues for correct issuance of summons for summary trial (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of procedural requirements under order xxxvii (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. judicial interpretation of summary trial procedures (Para 9) |
| 5. final order to quash previous summons and revert to correct procedure (Para 13 , 14) |
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court calling in question an order dated 22-02-2025 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.7263 of 2024, whereby the concerned Court issues regular suit summons instead of summary suit summons. The form in which the summons is issued has become the fulcrum of the subject lis.
2. Heard Sri Dhananjay V. Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. Srivatsa, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The petitioner/plaintiff is engaged in the business of gems and jewellery. 1st defendant is a partnership firm and other defendants are its partners. The partnership firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting readymade garments. The transaction narrated in the case at hand span over a period of 13 years between 2006 and 2019. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants approached him for a loan/funds for expansion of their business on the premise that the business was running successfully. Through the years, the petitioner is said to have loaned different amounts of money on different dates. Several disputes between the two arose with regard to repayment of money. The petitioner then caused a legal notice on 12-03-2020 calling upon the defendants to pay `24,14,50,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. On 18-05-2020 the defendants are said to have replied to the legal notice acknowledging the fact that they owe a loan amount of `24.50 crores along with interest and that they were willing to give equity to the petitioner in their Company. The matter did not materialize. The petitioner then, is said to have knocked at the doors of the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate orders investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Whether the matter is pending investigation or otherwise, is not the issue in the present lis.
3.1. After all the aforesaid events, the petitioner files a suit in O.S.No.7263 of 2024 under Order XXXVII of the CPC for a summary trial. The concerned Court after hearing the arguments of the petitioner/plaintiff and the application, posts the matter for interim order. In terms of the impugned order, the Court issues summons in Form No.1 of Appendix-B of the CPC, which according to the petition averments ought to have been issued under Form No.4 of Appendix-B of the CPC. Pursuant to the receipt of summons, the defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was of commercial nature and it had to be brought before the Commercial Court. The other defendants follow suit by adopting contents of the application seeking rejection of the plaint. The 2nd defendant then files an application in I.A.No.IV under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to delete her from the array of parties. When things stood thus, the petitioner has approached this Court in the subject petition seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 22-02-2025 with a direction to the concerned Court to issue fresh summons under Form No.4 of Appendix-B of the CPC for conduct of summary trial and not regular trial, by treating the suit as a summary suit.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri Dhananjay V. Joshi appearing for the petitioner would contend that the concerned Court has erred in issuing summons under Form No.1 of Appendix B, which applies to regular suits wherein written statement is to be filed. The concerned Court ought to have issued summons i
