SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439149

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
M/S. COMMON THREADS – Appellant
Versus
MR. C. GANESH NARAYAN – Respondent
WP 34590/2025



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

Digitally signed

by

GAVRIBID ANUR 3. MR.MICHAEL PIERS

SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

GUPTA

S/O.M.C.PIERS

SREENATH

R/AT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR

Location: HIGH

COURT OF 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS

KARNATAKA

DEFENCE COLONY

INDIRANAGAR

BENGALURU-560 038

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH

SRI ROHIT FOR SMT.UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATES)

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. 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. 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 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 sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top