Karnataka High Court

Aijajahmed S/O. Ibrahimsab Bijapur vs The Bank Of Maharashtra on 4 August, 2025

Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                                      -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:9651-DB
                                                            COMAP No. 100014 of 2025


                       HC-KAR



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                          DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
                                               PRESENT

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                                                      AND
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

                                COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 100014 OF 2025

                      BETWEEN


                      1.   AIJAJAHMED
                           S/O. IBRAHIMSAB BIJAPUR,
                           AGE: 33 YEARS,
                           OCC: PETTY BUSINESS,
                           R/O. H.NO.58, GOKULDHAM,
                           GUDIHAL ROAD,
                           OLD HUBBALLI-580024.


                      2.   MOHAMMED YUSUF
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
                           S/O. FAKRUSAB BADAMI,
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
                           AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Dharwad Bench
                           R/O. GANGIMADI ROAD,
                           TAJ NAGAR, GADAG-582101.


                                                                        ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY MR. LADASAB M. AKKI, ADVOCATE)


                      AND


                      THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,
                      A NATIONALISED BANK,
                                  -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:9651-DB
                                       COMAP No. 100014 of 2025


HC-KAR




GADAG BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SHRI S. G. NARAYANARAO,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: MANAGER,
(BANK OF MAHARASHTRA),
R/O. NEAR TIPPU
SULTAN CIRCLE,
HUBBALLI ROAD,
GADAG-582101.


                                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRASHANTH HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)


     THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A)
OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG (COMMERCIAL COURT) IN
COM.O.S.NO.26/2023,      VIDE    ANNEXURE-'A'      AND    ALLOW   THE
APPLICATION U/S.10 AND 151 OF C.P.C., ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, GADAG (COMMERCIAL
COURT)   IN    COM.O.S.NO.26/2023        DATED      27-03-2025,   VIDE
ANNEXURE-'B' AND ETC.


     THIS     APPEAL   HAVING     BEEN      HEARD     AND   RESERVED
ON   30.07.2025    AND    COMING       ON    FOR     PRONOUNCEMENT
OF   JUDGMENT,    THIS    DAY,   THE     COURT     PRONOUNCED     THE
FOLLOWING:


CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
            AND
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                                      -3-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:9651-DB
                                            COMAP No. 100014 of 2025


HC-KAR



                            CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

This appeal is filed seeking following prayer:

"a) Set aside the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag (Commercial Court) in Com.

O.S.No.26/2023, vide Annexure-'A'.

b) Allow the application u/s.10 and 151 of C.P.C., on the file of Addl. District Session Judge, Gadag (Commercial Court) in Com. O.S.No.26/2023 dated 27.03.2025 vide Annexure-'B'."

2. Sri Ladasab M.Akki, learned counsel appearing for

appellants submits that the respondent filed a suit for recovery

of money against the appellants. In the said suit, the appellants

filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure seeking to stay the further proceedings of the suit on

the ground that the respondent filed private complaints which

are referred in the application and the issue involved in the suit

is directly an issue involved in the criminal cases. Hence,

proceedings in the suit are required to be stayed. It is

submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9651-DB

HC-KAR

contentions and rejected the application under the impugned

order which require to be interfered in this appeal.

3. Sri Prashanth Hosamani, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent/Bank supports the impugned order of the

trial Court and submits that the trial Court has recorded

detailed reasons at Para 8 of the impugned order and rejected

the application for stay of suit filed by the

petitioners/appellants which does not call for any interference.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and learned counsel for the respondent, meticulously

perused the material available on record.

5. The respondent/Bank filed commercial

O.S.No.26/2023 against the appellants herein for recovery of

money. In the said suit, the petitioners/appellants filed an

application under Section 10 of CPC seeking to stay the

proceedings in the suit on the ground that there are criminal

cases pending against the Manager of the Bank and the issue

involved in the criminal case is an issue in the suit. The trial

Court under the impugned order recorded the finding that the

issue involved in the criminal case and the suit are different

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9651-DB

HC-KAR

and the suit is against the petitioners who have borrowed the

loan from the respondent/Bank. We do not find any error in the

finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in the

suit.

6. Section 10 of the CPC provides for stay of

proceedings with the trial of any suit if the matter in issue is

directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit

between the same parties. In the case on hand, the subject

matter in the suit is for recovery of money and the criminal

case pending is a distinct to the issue involved in the suit and in

Section 10 of the CPC speaks about stay of suit and the case on

hand there are no two suits on the same issue. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, referred supra.

"8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9651-DB

HC-KAR

apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used in contradistinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue". Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical."

7. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that

the Trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the issues

involved in the suits is distinct from the criminal proceeding

and has rejected the application. We do not find any perversity

or error in the finding recorded by the Trial Court calling for

interference in this appeal. Section 10 of C.P.C., speaks about

two suits between the same parties. However in a case on

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9651-DB

HC-KAR

hand, the ingredients of Section 10 of C.P.C., are absent. The

filing of an application by the petitioner before the Trial Court