Karnataka High Court
Mr. Anirudh Putsala vs Newspace Research And Technologies ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48590
WP No. 32849 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.32849 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR.ANIRUDH PUTSALA
S/O PRASADA RAO PUTSALA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
303, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA PG,
NO 1723 1ST MAIN
6TH CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 092
2. M/S LENVIZ TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT/2015
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
L-58, SECTOR-11, NOIDA,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH 201 301
Digitally signed by
ALSO AT
GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GNEC-IIT ROORKEE, PLOT NO.20,
GUPTA SREENATH
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KNOWLEDGE PARK II, GREATER NOIDA,
KARNATAKA UTTAR PRADESH 201 310
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. PRABHAT SHARMA
3. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA
S/O SHISHU PAL SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
DIRECTOR, LENVIZ TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE
LIMITED,
L-58, SECTOR-11, NOIDA,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH 201 301
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48590
WP No. 32849 of 2025
HC-KAR
ALSO AT
GNEC-IIT ROORKEE, PLOT NO.20,
KNOWLEDGE PARK II, GREATER NOIDA,
UTTAR PRADESH 201 310
ALSO AT
B2/510, TOWER 11, SILVER CITY,
SECTOR 93, NOIDA,
UTTAR PRADESH-201 310.
4. MR. AKASH PATIL
S/O MADHUKAR PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
FLAT NO. A031, VAJRAM ELINA,
R.K. HEGDE NAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560 064
ALSO AT
FLAT NO. 1, ANUJ HEIGHTS,
PURNANAGAR, CHINCHWAD,
PUNE, 411 019
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.DHANANJAY V.JOSHI., SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
VACHAN H U.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NEWSPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES
PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,
2013,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
2385, 1ST FLOOR, 60 FEET ROAD
SAHAKARNAGAR, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560 092
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. SAMEER JOSHI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANGAD KAMATH.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48590
WP No. 32849 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.08.2025, IN OS NO. 8367/2024
PASSED BY THE HONBLE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT
BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.8.2025 passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.8367/2024.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:
i) Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, contractors, his employers, partners or any other person/entity claiming through or under the defendants from directly or indirectly copying, sharing or using in any manner the confidential/proprietary information/material -4- NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR belonging to the plaintiff inter alia as referred to in the forensic investigation report produced as Document No.20.
ii) Decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants, their agents, contractors, his employers, partners or any other person/entity claiming through or under the defendants to deliver up to the plaintiff all copies of, and destroy any remaining physical and digital copies of the confidential/proprietary information/material belonging to the plaintiff.
4. The defendants on receipt of summons appeared before the Court, filed their written statement and sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff filed four interlocutory applications.
5.1 I.A. No.1/2024 came to be filed under Order II Rule 2 of CPC praying to allow the plaintiff to calculate and seek damages and other reliefs upon quantification of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR damages and losses suffered on account of the acts of the defendants.
5.2 I.A. No.2/2024 came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to grant an ad interim exparte order of Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly copying, sharing or using in any manner the confidential/proprietary information/material belonging to the plaintiff.
5.3 I.A. No.3/2024 came to be filed under Section 151 of CPC r/w Order XXVI Rules 1 & 9 praying to grant an ad interim exparte order appointing a Commissioner to seize computers, laptops, servers, mobile devices, external storage media etc., in the possession of the defendants.
5.4 I.A. No.4/2024 came to be filed under Section 151 of CPC r/w Order XXVI Rules 1 & 9 of CPC praying to grant an ad interim exparte order appointing a -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR Commissioner to seize data storage media, files, folders, documents, cloud storage media, internal file sharing systems etc., of the defendants maintained with other computer applications.
6. Vide order dated 29.11.2024 in O.S. No.8367/2024, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.2/2024 and an ad interim exparte order of Temporary Injunction came to be passed prior to issuance of notice to the defendants.
7. It is the contention of learned senior counsel - Sri Dhananjay Joshi appearing on behalf of Sri. Vachan H.U., learned counsel for petitioners/defendants that aggrieved by refusal to pass an exparte ad interim order on I.A. No.3 by the trial Court and issuance of emergent notice, the respondent/plaintiff approached this Court in W.P.No.32999/2024. This Court passed an exparte order appointing the Commissioner. Thereafter, W.P. No.32999/2015 came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.1.2025 directing the Registry to transfer the Court Commissioner's report to the trial Court and the trial Court -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, deciding the legality and validity of the Court Commissioner's report, after giving an opportunity to both parties. It is contended that the validity and legality of the Court Commissioner's report is still pending consideration before the trial Court.
7.1 It is further contended by learned senior counsel that this being the state of affairs, without considering the validity of the Court Commissioner's report, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.4 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rules 1 & 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 29.4.2025, yet again appointing the Court Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2025 passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed W.P. No.19229/2025 (GM-CPC) before this Court and the same is pending consideration before this court.
7.2 Learned senior counsel contends that on 18.8.2025 the defendants filed an I.A. No.8 before the trial Court under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil -8- NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR Procedure praying to return the plaint filed by the plaintiff to be presented before the Commercial Court. It is contended that in the said application, the plea was taken that the subject matter of the suit was alleged breach of confidential information and misappropriation of proprietary data that squarely fall within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned senior counsel contends that the trial Court instead of passing orders on I.A. No.8 filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for return of the plaint, deferred consideration of said I.A. until receipt of the Commissioner's report. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court.
8. It is the vehement contention of learned senior counsel - Sri Dhananjay Joshi that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and untenable in law and deserves to be set aside. He contends that despite an application being filed by the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction, the trial Court has failed to consider the application at threshold and instead deferred its consideration until receipt of the Commissioner's report in I.A. No.4, which is impermissible in law. On this ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8.1 Learned senior counsel further contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled principles of law that the jurisdiction is a threshold issue and needs to be decided at the earliest possible stage even before considering any other interlocutory application. He further contends that the impugned order passed by the trial Court deferring the decision on I.A. No.8, which is filed for return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction, has resulted in the assumption of jurisdiction by the trial Court, which infact does not possess and it amounts to miscarriage of justice. Learned senior counsel contends that the trial Court has committed a grave error in linking
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR the jurisdictional issue with the Commissioner's report in I.A. NO.4.
8.2 Learned senior counsel further contends that the trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that the issue of jurisdiction, once raised, must be tried as a preliminary issue. He further contends that the trial Court extended the interim order without first determining the question of jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial Court has committed procedural irregularity and violated the principles of natural justice as the defendants have a vested right to have the issue of jurisdiction decided at the earliest, which in the present case has been denied by the trial Court by unnecessarily clubbing it with other applications, which is not warranted.
8.3 On these grounds, learned senior counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 18.8.2025 and to direct the trial Court to hear and decide I.A. No.8 filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR return of the plaint, as a preliminary issue, in accordance with law, before proceeding to consider any other I.A., on merits of the case.
8.4 Learned Senior Counsel relies upon following authorities in support of his case:
i) Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad reported in (2024)4 SCC 696;
ii) Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Health Services, Haryana reported in (2013)10 SCC 136;
iii) Sri Shivananda Sharma and another v.
Smt.Shantha Nagesha Rao (Rep. by LRs.) in MFA.No.2731/2023 [Decided on 28.07.2023];
9. Per contra, Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently contends that there is absolutely no illegality, perversity and arbitrariness in the impugned order of the trial Court. He contends that certain facts would be relevant for deciding this petition. The
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.8367/2024 for relief of perpetual and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly copying, sharing or using in any manner the confidential/proprietary information/material belonging to the plaintiff. Further, he contends that on 29.11.2024, the trial Court granted an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application in IA.No.3 under Order XXVI Rules 1 and 9 of CPC seeking an appointment of the Court Commissioner, on which the trial Court had issued emergent notice. He further contends that this being the state of affairs, aggrieved by non granting of ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction on IA.No.3, the plaintiff approached this Court by filing a writ petition in WP.No.32999/2024. By a detailed order dated 29.01.2025, this Court disposed of the writ petition and upheld the validity of the ex parte order appointing the Commissioner dated 06.12.2024 of this Court and directed the trial Court to decide the legality and validity of the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR Commissioner's report and consequently, dispose of IA.No.4 expeditiously.
9.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for plaintiff that the trial Court took up the application in IA.No.4 from March, 2025 by hearing the parties to the proceedings and by its order dated 29.04.2025, allowed the application for appointing the Court Commissioner with certain safeguards and directed both parties to file memos of instructions and deposits Commissioner's fee. It is further contended by learned counsel that the defendants participated in the proceedings, filed written statement and objections to IA.No.4 on the appointment of the Court Commissioner and did not raise any plea or issue of jurisdiction not being vested with the Court.
9.2 It is further contended that IA.No.4 stood concluded and memos were filed with regard to instructions to the Commissioner and the Commissioner warrant was to be issued for execution. At this stage, on 18.08.2025, the defendants belatedly filed IA.No.8 under
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR Order VII Rule 10 of CPC alleging that the matter is in the nature of the commercial dispute and requested the Court to hear the application in IA.No.8 prior to consideration of any other applications including that of the Commissioner's report.
9.3 Learned counsel for plaintiff contends that admittedly, the defendants have not raised an issue of bar of jurisdiction of the trial Court, as no such plea was taken at the earlier possible opportunity. The defendants has contested the suit, filed written statement, objections to the application filed for appointment of Commissioner. However, the plea with regard to bar of jurisdiction was neither taken before the trial Court nor before this Court in WP.No.32999/2024. Learned counsel vehemently makes a submission that it is only after IA.No.4 was allowed, the Commissioner was prepared to execute the warrant and the defendants all of a sudden filed IA.No.8 coming with a plea of bar of jurisdiction of the trial Court. He contends that the conduct of the defendants is to be noted in the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR whole proceedings as no such plea or the application was filed with regard to bar of jurisdiction at the earlier point of time before the trial Court or even before this Court in the Coordinate petition, which came to be disposed of. Thereafter, when the application was argued and IA was allowed with regard to appointment of Court Commissioner before the trial Court in IA.No.4, it is only after the issuance of warrant, this application is filed in IA.No.8 on 18.08.2025 only with an intention to stall and prevent the Commissioner's report from being filed, which is already been issued.
9.4 Learned counsel for plaintiff contends that no doubt, the application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC must necessarily be taken before any other application, if it is filed at the earlier point of time, but when it is filed belatedly with a deliberate and mala fide intention to stall other proceedings, since there is no other avenue open to the defendants to stop the execution of the Commissioner warrant. The contention of learned Senior Counsel that
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR the application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC must necessarily be taken up before all other applications in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is misconceived also for the reason that IA.No.4 has already been adjudicated on 29.04.2025, as on which date, there was no pending applications, more specifically IA.No.8 filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC which would require immediate prioritisation.
9.5 Learned counsel for plaintiff further contends that had the defendants filed application at the earliest point of time prior to filing of the application in IA.No.4 or for that matter, consideration of IA.No.4, then the defendants would be right in raising such plea of deciding their application before any other application is decided. In the present facts of the case, the timing of filing this application is a crucial factor to be considered as it is timed in such a manner to stall the Commissioner warrant and filing of the same by the Commissioner to the trial Court, when the same is already allowed by the trial Court.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR 9.6 Learned counsel further contends that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court cannot be used to re- order or re-prioritse procedural steps unless the trial Court's action results in 'manifest injustice' or is so arbitrary that no reasonable Court could have made it. It is further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, if the application in IA.No.8 is heard after the submission of the Commissioner's report. It is also contended that the defendants have presumed and prejudged an order to be in their favour on application in IA.No.8. He further contends that even the Court were to allow the application in IA.No.8 and returns the plaint, the transferee Court would have to recommence the proceedings. Therefore, no irreparable injury and hardship that would be caused to the defendants. On the contrary, if the Commissioner's report is delayed which is in the guise of Anton Piller order, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable prejudice, hardship and loss. Therefore, the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff in this issue.
9.7 Learned counsel further contends that it is relevant to note at this stage that the defendants have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court will have to see as to whether the defendants have made out the case before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in several catena of judgments has held that the judicial order of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India is only supervisory and it is not an appellate jurisdiction. It is a well settled law that the power of judicial superintendence must be exercised sparingly only when it is warranted to substantiate this aspect. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR Mumbai v. Vivek K. Gawde reported in 2024 INSC 985 and he also relies upon the judgment in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim reported in (1983)4 SCC 566 to contend that - "a mere wrong decision is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 ".
9.8 It is further contended by learned counsel that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would only be warranted when the decision of the trial Court is arbitrary and capricious that "no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it". The focus is more on the perversity, patent illegality, violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, he contends that in the present case on hand, the trial Court has not passed any order which is perverse, capricious or absurd warranting interference at the hands of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court has only sequenced hearing of IA.No.8 after execution already allowed in IA.No.4. Therefore, the order so passed by the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR trial Court does not show any irrationality or perversity or arbitrariness as the trial Court has not said that it is not going to hear IA.No.8 filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.
9.9 Learned counsel further contends that in the application in IA.No.4, the plaintiff already obtained an order in the guise of Anton Piller's order, which is an extraordinary but judicially recognised mechanism to prevent the destruction of vital evidence. He contends that Anton Piller's orders are legal mechanism which can be granted, an ad interim ex parte order to preserve and protect the property as any delay in execution of the said order fatally undermines its very purpose which will frustrate the entire relief and the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit as well as the application. Therefore, he contends that this Court having granted an ad interim order of appointment of Commissioner in the writ petition filed by the plaintiff, which has been finally disposed of the matter by remitting the same to the trial Court to
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR reconsider the application in IA.No.4, which came to be allowed and the Commissioner has been appointed to execute the warrant to that effect.
9.10 Learned counsel, at this stage, contends that when the defendants have come to know that the Commissioner would execute the warrant to seize material and protect interest of the plaintiff on the confidential information which is now alleged to be stolen and misappropriated by the defendants, the defendants have come up with this application to stall the proceedings and execution of the Commissioner warrant only with mala fide intention and ulterior motive rather than the genuine cause. Therefore, learned counsel for plaintiff contends that he does not have any objections in the application in IA.No.8 filed by the defendants to be heard as per the order of the trial Court subsequent to receiving of the Commissioner's report.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR 9.11 It is the contention of learned counsel for plaintiff that if all other proceedings are stayed or stalled or stopped till deciding of the application in IA.No.8 which is filed by the defendants at this belated stage, it would certainly give the defendants an advantage and opportunity to delete, encrypt, transfer or otherwise destroy sensitive information, defeating the very purpose of Anton Piller mechanism. He further contends that the very purpose of issuance of such order is preservation and such preservation would become impossible if the defendants are forewarned and procrastinated by stalling the process to consider any other application, which the defendants assume to be subsequently allowed in their favour. Learned counsel further contends that even for the sake of argument, if the application in IA.No.8 filed by the defendants would be allowed, the entire process would get reverted for de novo trial. Therefore, there would not be any hardship or inconvenience on the impugned order passed by the trial Court, on the contrary, if the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR Commissioner warrant is now stalled, it would cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff on the guise of the belated jurisdictional plea raised by the defendants. The trial Court having heard the parties and seized of the matter, is conscious of all these facts of the matter and hence, passed this order which is absolutely justifiable and does not call for interference.
9.12 Learned counsel further contends that there is no perversity, illegality or error committed by the trial Court. In fact, it is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to continue with the process already initiated by the trial Court and on conclusion of the order on IA.No.4, which though questioned by the defendants in the writ petition before this Court, the same is not moved or precipitated to obtain any interim order of stay by the trial Court with regard to appointment of the Commissioner.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR 9.13 Under such circumstances, the defendants have mala fidely ventured into filing this application in IA.No.8 only with an intention to stall the execution of the Commissioner warrant. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the impugned order.
9.14. Learned counsel for plaintiff relies upon the following authorities in support of his case:
i) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v.
Vivek K. Gawde reported in 2024 INSC 985;
ii) Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim reported in (1983)4 SCC 566;
iii) Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and Others reported in (2015)5 SCC 423;
10. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioners-defendants, learned counsel for respondent- plaintiff and having perused the impugned order, the materials placed on record and having gone through the sequence of events before the trial Court and before this
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR Court, it is apparently clear that the defendants have not raised the plea of jurisdiction at the earliest point of time. The defendants have contested the matter, filed their statement of objections to the plaint, filed their objections to the other applications and also contested the matter before the High Court on the challenge made by the plaintiff for non grant of ad interim ex parte order appointing the Court Commissioner on IA.No.4 which was filed along with the plaint for an order in the nature of Anton Piller against the defendants for protection, preservation of the data and the confidential information.
11. It is also relevant to note that this Court in the writ petition preferred in WP.No.32999/2024 by the plaintiff against non granting of an ad interim ex parte order appointed the Court Commissioner vide its order dated 06.12.2024. Thereafter, the petition came to be allowed on 29.01.2025 with a direction to the trial Court to consider the legality and validity of the Court Commissioner's report by transferring the same to the trial
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR Court and did not express any opinion on merits of the Commissioner's report.
12. Upon such an order, the matter was posted and remanded before the trial Court by both the plaintiff and the defendants, even during which time, no plea was made or issue was raised with regard to jurisdiction. However, the trial Court has allowed IA.No.4 for execution of the Commissioner's report and has issued warrant. It is also relevant to see that the challenge made by the defendants in WP.No.19229/2025 is also not moved or precipitated by the defendants and have now come with this application at the stage when the Commissioner warrant is to be executed, which in my opinion shows the conduct of the defendants in filing this application at a belated stage to be not genuine. Be that as it may, the application filed by the defendants requires to be decided.
13. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022)4 SCC 181,
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-15 as under:
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand Goel v. Garment Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69]. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice."
14. It is no doubt true that the application in IA.No.8 filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC could be filed at any stage of the proceedings. It is also a trite law that such application filed even on a belated stage, it is required to be considered on a priority basis as it touches the jurisdiction of the Court as to whether it can proceed further in the suit proceedings or stop there. In the present case on hand, on the application filed by the defendants, the trial Court has passed an order to hear the application after objections are filed by the plaintiff as the
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR objections are yet to be filed and would hear the said application after receipt of the Commissioner's report on IA.No.4, which is already allowed. It is submitted across the Bar by learned counsel for plaintiff that the Commissioner warrant is already issued. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the trial Court has not said that it would not hear the application in IA.No.8 filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, but it has only said that the said application would be heard after the objections are filed and on receipt of Commissioner's report on IA.No.4, which is already allowed on 29.04.2025. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the order.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48590 WP No. 32849 of 2025 HC-KAR
15. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER This writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE pages 1 to 10 .. GSS 11 to end .. LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71