A writ petition by a company challenging orders allowing the plaintiff's amendment substituting a new entity as defendant and rejecting the defendant's plaint-rejection application. The court held that since the petitioner had been removed from the suit, its cause of action to maintain the petition vanished, and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.21699 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. VASUKI POWER PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 7, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, SOCIETY COLONY, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SURESH BABU V
Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. PRATHAPAN., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAMESH S S/O. MR. N. SRINIDHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS A SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. V. S. COOLERS, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT HVAC ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,
NC: 2024:KHC:34856 WP No. 21699 of 2024
NO. 20, 1ST FLOOR, 14TH CROSS, II PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 085.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SAMEER SHARMA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 19.07.2024 WHEREBY THE HONBLE COMMERCIAL COURT IN COM OS NO. 641/2024 HAS ALLOWED THE IA NO. 2 TO CARRY OUT THE AMENDMENTS SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 27.07.2024 WHEREBY THE HONBLE COMMERCIAL COURT IN COM OS NO. 641/2024 REJECTED THE IA NO. 1 FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrayed as
defendant/respondent before the Commercial Court in Com.O.S.No.641/2024 is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 19.07.2024 and 27.07.2024 in respect of I.A.Nos.1 & 2.
NC: 2024:KHC:34856 WP No. 21699 of 2024
and after appearance of the petitioner herein, the defendant/petitioner herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint contending that there was no cause of action against the defendant. It was contended that the defendant had no transaction with the plaintiff and therefore there was no cause of action as against the defendant and therefore the plaint should be rejected. After such an application was fled by the defendant/petitioner, the plaintiff/respondent also filed another application under order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment more particularly the description of the defendant. In the application filed for amendment the plaintiff sought for the amendment of the cause title and to describe the defendant as “Sri Vasuki Power Systems Pvt. Ltd.,”, in the place of “Vasuki Power Pvt. Ltd.,”. The application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 was allowed and thereafter the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 was rejected. Consequently, both the orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:34856 WP No. 21699 of 2024
petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that although the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 is rejected, nevertheless it is as good as allowing the application. At any rate, the petitioner cannot have any grievance, since by way of amendment the petitioner has been removed from the suit and a new entity named as “Sri Vasuki Power Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, is shown as the defendant in the suit. The petitioner was
aggrieved of the fact that although there was no transaction between the petitioner and respondent herein, a suit was filed and a claim was made against the petitioner herein. Now by way of the two orders passed by the trial court, the petitioner is no more a party to the suit and a new entity named as “Sri Vasuki Power Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, has been incorporated as defendant in the suit.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that a challenge sought to be raised at the hands of the petitioner at this stage after the petitioner has been
removed from the list of parties in the suit, the cause of action for the petitioner to maintain this writ petition also vanishes. If at all any person is aggrieved, it will be a new entity namely “Sri Vasuki Power Systems Pvt. Ltd.”, that could raise a challenge to its addition in the suit.
dismissed .
Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE
KLY CT: JL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the defendant's writ petition challenging rejection of its Order VII Rule 11 application survives when the amendment removed the petitioner from the suit and substituted a new entity.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Vasuki Power Private Limited
Sri Ramesh S
R Devdas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
