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

NC: 2025:KHC:48590

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

NC: 2025:KHC:48590

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

NC: 2025:KHC:48590

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

NC: 2025:KHC:48590

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

NC: 2025:KHC:48590

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

NC: 2025:KHC:48590

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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