IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5049 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VANITHA S, D/O SURYANARAYANA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. 103, 1ST FLOOR, YUGAL PARADISE, HESARAGATTA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 097 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY Digitally signed FOR IMA AND OTHER KPID CASES, by CHAITHRA A OFFICE AT 3^RD FLOOR, Location: HIGH COURT OF MINI VV TOWER, PODIUM BLOCK, KARNATAKA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY SRI. AMLAN ADITYA BISWAS, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL OFFICER FOR, SIRI VAIBHAVA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA …RESPONDENT (V/O DATED 17.02.2026, VEERESH R BUDIHAL (VK NOT FILED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LEARNED XCI ADDI. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-92), IN MISC. NO. 1467/2025 TO TAKE THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC ON FILE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND DISPOSE OF ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed calling in question the order passed by the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, “KPIDFE Act”), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) came to be rejected as not maintainable.

2. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the KPIDFE Act seeking attachment of properties allegedly belonging to the petitioner.

3. Upon service of notice, the petitioner entered appearance and filed objections. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the petition on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and is not maintainable.

4. The Special Court, by the impugned order, rejected the said application holding that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable in proceedings under Section 13 of the KPIDFE Act.

5. The petitioner contends the KPIDFE Act does not expressly exclude applicability of CPC. He further submits that Section 12(5) of the KPIDFE Act mandates following summary procedure akin to Order XXXVII CPC and therefore by virtue of Section 4 CPC, general procedural provisions including Order VII Rule 11 would apply and that Proceedings under Section 13 of the KPIDFE Act are civil in nature. He therefore vehemently submits that the impugned order is non-speaking.

6. Reliance is placed on Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Digvijay Cement, RFA (OS) No.46 of 2006, wherein it is held that provisions of CPC apply to summary suits unless specifically excluded.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the records. On meticulous examination, the following point arises for consideration:

"Whether an application under Order VII Rule

11 CPC is maintainable in proceedings before the Special Court under Section 13 of the KPIDFE Act?"

8. The KPIDFE Act is a special legislation enacted to protect the interests of depositors, provide for speedy

attachment and realization of properties of defaulting financial establishments and ensure expeditious recovery and distribution. The KPIDFE Act provides a self-contained mechanism, beginning from ad-interim attachment under Section 3 of the KPIDFE Act, confirmation through Special Court under Section 12 of the KPIDFE Act, adjudication of