Dismissed¶67

Audikesh Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. v. Metropolis Healthcare Limited

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025WP/29126/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Separate trial; Order I Rule 3-A CPC; Order II Rule 6 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order I Rule 3; Order II Rule 3; misjoinder of parties and cause of action; joinder of defendants; joinder of cause of action; embarrassment or delay of trial; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; commercial suit recovery claim; Metropolis Healthcare Limited; Audikesh Hospitals Pvt Ltd; Inder Bahadur Singh v. Sita Ram ILR 1941 All 370; Khader Saheb v. Chotibibi (1884) ILR 8 Bom 616; High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The powers under Order I Rule 3-A and Order II Rule 6 CPC to order separate trials can be exercised only if the court finds the joinder of several causes or defendants inconvenient, i.e., such joinder may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit. ¶66

Audikesh Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Metropolis… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing IA No.2 filed by defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 under Order I Rule 3-A and Order II Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a separate trial relating to defendant nos.1, 2, 4 & 5, in view of the alleged misjoinder of parties and causes of action.

¶41

Court's answer

¶66

Ratio / Principle

In the present case that situation did not arise: the Trial Court had observed that the defendants are collectively liable to pay the outstanding dues, and accordingly the judgment relied upon by the petitioners (Inder Bahadur Singh) could not be made applicable to the facts of this case; the petition therefore did not merit consideration.

¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Vishwajith Shetty J), 14.10.2025, WP No. 29126 of 2025 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution. Defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 in Com.O.S.No.1390/2023 (respondent no.1 Metropolis Healthcare's recovery suit for Rs.24,66,072/- with 12% interest) challenged the order dated 03.09.2025 of the LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing their IA No.2 dated 14.03.2025 under Order I Rule 3-A and Order II Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC seeking separate trials relating to defendant nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 on the plea of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Held: the separate-trial powers under Order I Rule 3-A / Order II Rule 6 CPC can be exercised only where the court finds the joinder of several causes or defendants inconvenient (embarrassing or delaying the trial); no such finding existed here, the Trial Court having observed collective liability of the defendants; reliance on Inder Bahadur Singh v. Sita Ram, ILR 1941 All 370 (which itself rested on Khader Saheb v. Chotibibi, (1884) ILR 8 Bom 616) was misplaced. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40565 WP No. 29126 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 29126 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

AUDIKESH HOSPITALS PVT LTD COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT COMPLEX NO.2, NO.2C/330 OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI BANGALORE - 560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SURJIT PAL SINGH.

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. SURJIT PAL SINGH AGED 49 YEARS S/O SRI HANUMAN SINGH RESIDING AT NO. 412, 6TH MAIN 1ST CROSS HAL 2ND STAGE BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE - 560 008 ALSO AT COMPLEX NO.2 NO.2C/330, OMBR LAYOUT BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶13

NEW JANAPRIYA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL HAVING OFFICE AT NO.2M AND 319 EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SURJIT PAL SINGH.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI SAMEER SHARMA, ADV.)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40565 WP No. 29126 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

METROPOLIS HEALTHCARE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS R.V. METROPOLIS DIAGNOSTIC AND HEALTHCARE CENTRE PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.250D UDYOG BHAVAN, HIND CYCLE MARG WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 030 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. BALAJI B. R., MANAGER FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS.

¶20

DR. SUNIL KUMAR AGED MAJOR S/O. 'NOT KNOWN' HAVING OFFICE AT COMPLEX NO.2 NO. 2C/330, OMBR LAYOUT BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶21

MR. GANGADHAR MALLAPPA AGED MAJOR S/O 'NOT KNOWN' HAVING OFFICE AT COMPLEX NO.2 NO.2C/330, OMBR LAYOUT BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶22

JANAPRIYA HOSPITALS HEATH CARE HAVING OFFICE AT NO.2 SUBBAIAHNAPALYA BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE UTTAM SAGAR HOSPITAL, BANGALORE - 560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS SALE PROPRIETOR.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2025 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING COM. O. S. NO. 1390 OF 2023, RENDERED ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 DATED

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:40565 WP No. 29126 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

14.03.2025, BY THE COURT OF THE LXXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE A)

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners, who are defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 in Com.O.S.No.1390/2023 pending before the Court of LXXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following reliefs:

¶33

A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to set aside the order dated 03.09.2025 passed in proceedings bearing Com.O.S.No.1390 of 2023, rendered on Interloctuory Application No.2 dated 14.03.2025, by the Court of the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (Annexure 'A');

¶34

B. As a consequence of Prayer (A), allow the Interlocutory Application No.2 dated 14.03.2025 filed by the petitioners herein before the Court of the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (Annexure 'N');

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:40565 WP No. 29126 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

C. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶39

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

Respondent no.1 herein has filed Com.O.S.No.1390/2023

¶41

before the jurisdictional Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,66,072/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the defendants. In the said suit, defendant no.4 has filed his written statement. Defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 had filed an application - IA No.2 before the Trial Court under Order I Rule 3-A and Order II Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to conduct separate trial on the subject matter relating to defendant nos.1, 2, 4 & 5. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has dismissed IA No.2 and being aggrieved by the same, defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 are before this Court.

¶42

Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the

¶43

grounds urged in the petition, submits that even according to the averments found in the plaint, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of only a sum of Rs.2,73,666/- with interest from the

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40565 WP No. 29126 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

petitioners and defendant no.4. The remaining claim is not as against the petitioners herein. There is misjoinder of parties and cause of actions in the present case which is likely to delay the trial. He, therefore, submits that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA No.2. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of INDER BAHADUR SINGH VS SITA RAM & OTHERS - ILR 1941 ALL 370 .

¶47

Perusal of the plaint averments would go to show that plaintiff has averred that defendant no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and defendant nos.5 & 6 are entities of defendant no.1-company. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the request of defendant no.1, he had rendered services to defendant no.1 and towards the same, defendant no.1 has been making payments since the year 2018. At the request of defendant no.1, bills were raised in the name of defendant nos.5 & 6 who are the entities of defendant no.1company. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that as per its understanding with defendant no.1, the transactions were done by the plaintiff in the name of defendant nos.5 & 6, though

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40565 WP No. 29126 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

payments were being made by defendant no.1 for the services rendered by the plaintiff. It is under these circumstances, the suit is filed by including defendant nos.5 & 6 as party defendants.

¶51

Order I Rule 3 of CPC provides for joining defendants to a suit and Order I Rule 3-A of CPC provides that if it appears to the court that any joinder of defendants may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit, the court may order separate trial in the interest of justice.

¶52

Similarly, Order II Rule 3 of CPC provides for joinder of cause of actions and Order II Rule 6 of CPC provides power to the court to order separate trial where it appears to the court that joinder of cause of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial, or is otherwise inconvenient to the court, the Court may order separate trials in the interest of justice.

¶53

From the reading of Order I Rule 3-A CPC as well Order II Rule 6 CPC, it is apparent that if only the court finds that joinder of defendants or joinder of cause of action in a suit may

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:40565 WP No. 29126 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

embarrass or delay the trial of the suit, then the court may pass appropriate orders.

¶58

In the case on hand, the Trial Court has observed that defendants are collectively liable to pay the outstanding dues, and accordingly, has rejected the prayer made in IA No.2 by defendant nos.1, 2 & 5.

¶59

It is relevant to note here that defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 have not filed their written statement before the Trial Court, and on the other hand, they have made a prayer to hold a separate trial against them and defendant no.4. Defendant nos.3 & 6 who are served in the matter, have remained unrepresented before the Trial Court, and therefore, they have been placed ex-parte before the Trial Court.

¶60

In Inder Bahadur Singh's case supra, the High Court of Allahabad, placing reliance on the judgment in the case of KHADER SAHEB VS CHOTIBIBI - (1884) ILR 8 BOM 616 , which was rendered by a Bench of Bombay High Court, has observed that if a court finds several causes as between plaintiff and other defendants, which cannot properly or conveniently be

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:40565 WP No. 29126 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

tried together, should deal with them separately as what may be called as sub-suits.

¶65

From a reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that it is

¶66

only if the court finds it inconvenient with several causes or defendants, then the powers under Order I Rule 3-A or Order II Rule 6 can be exercised. In the case on hand, the same is not

¶67

the situation, and therefore, the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶68

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶69

Audikesh Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. v. Metropolis Healthcare Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Audikesh Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. v. Metropolis Healthcare Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri G N Ravishankar Vs Shri G S Suresh Kumar

Mr Gajandran Murthy Vs Sri Naveen Kumar K

M/S Sundew Properties, Vs Sri. Ronak.R

Sri Sathish Shenoy Vs Smt. B Vijayalxmi Bhat

Smt. B.K.Sendamari Vs Sri K.N.Nagesh

Sri Sundarappa Vs Smt Vijaya Kumari