Aijajahmed S/O. Ibrahimsab Bijapur Vs the Bank of Maharashtra — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Aijajahmed S/O. Ibrahimsab Bijapur Vs the Bank of Maharashtra — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; appeal dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/- payable by the appellants to the respondent/Bank.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the appellants' application under Section 10 CPC for stay of the money-recovery suit Com.O.S.No.26/2023 on the ground that criminal cases/private complaints pending against the Bank's Manager involve the same issue. +1 more

Court's answer

The Trial Court rightly recorded that the issues in the suit are distinct from the criminal proceeding and rightly rejected the stay application; the finding has no perversity or error calling for interference.

Ratio / Principle

The subject matter of the suit is recovery of money and the criminal case pending is distinct from the issue involved in the suit.

Key takeaways

Section 10 CPC speaks about two suits between the same parties.ratio¶57
In the case on hand, the ingredients of Section 10 CPC are absent.ratio¶61
The filing of the stay application before the Trial Court and subsequently of this appeal is an abuse of process of law; hence the appeal is rejected with costs.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Commercial Appeal (COMAP No. 100014 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 04-08-2025) under S.13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging rejection of an application under Ss.10 & 151 CPC seeking stay of commercial money-recovery suit Com.O.S.No.26/2023 on account of parallel criminal cases/private complaints against the Bank's Manager. Held: S.10 CPC operates only between two suits in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue; the pending criminal case is distinct from the suit's recovery issue and there are no two suits on the same issue, so the ingredients of S.10 are absent; the Trial Court rightly recorded the distinctness and rejected the application, with no perversity or error; the filing of the application and the appeal is an abuse of process of law. Relying on National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Supreme Court), appeal dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/- payable to the respondent/Bank. Coram: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijaykumar A. Patil (judgment authored by Vijaykumar A. Patil).

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 4^TH 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

AIJAJAHMED S/O. IBRAHIMSAB BIJAPUR,

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

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

MOHAMMED YUSUF S/O. FAKRUSAB BADAMI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 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’.”

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

4 -

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

HC-KAR

contentions and rejected the application under the impugned order which require to be interfered in this appeal.

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.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record.

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

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

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.

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

6 -

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

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."

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

7 -

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

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 and later filing of this appeal is an abuse of process of law. Hence, appeal required to be rejected with costs.

For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/- payable by the appellants to the respondent/Bank.

Sd/(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

CLK CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3