<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has recommended action against a city civil judge in Bengaluru for citing non-existent Supreme Court judgments while deciding an application filed under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).</p>.<p>"What is more disturbing is the fact that the judge of the City Civil Court has cited two decisions, which were never decided by the Supreme Court or any other court. The senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not cited by the counsel for the plaintiffs. This act on the part of the judge would require further probe and appropriate action in accordance with law," Justice R Devdas said, while directing the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for action against the said civil judge.</p>.<p>In this case, a Civil Revision Petition was filed under Section 115 of the CPC, challenging the impugned order dated November 25, 2024, related to an original suit. The application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC was rejected.</p>.Karnataka Energy Minister dismisses allegation against meter supplying company.<p>While rejecting the defendants' application, the 9th Additional City Civil Judge relied on two Supreme Court cases — Jalan Trading Co Pvt Ltd Vs Millenium Telecom Ltd and Kvalrner Cemintation India Ltd Vs Achil Builders Pvt Ltd. However, the high court was informed that the Supreme Court had never delivered any such judgments.</p>.<p>Justice Devdas also noted that the plaintiffs, who had earlier filed a commercial suit, did not seek the court's permission to withdraw it before filing the suit in the civil court.</p>.<p>"…having regard to the express provisions contained in Rule 10A of Order VII, the matter stands remitted to the learned 9th Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, only to enable the plaintiffs to file an application in terms of clause (2) of Rule 10A of Order VII. For that purpose, the parties herein are directed to appear before the learned 9th Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on April 2, 2025, without further notice," the court said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has recommended action against a city civil judge in Bengaluru for citing non-existent Supreme Court judgments while deciding an application filed under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).</p>.<p>"What is more disturbing is the fact that the judge of the City Civil Court has cited two decisions, which were never decided by the Supreme Court or any other court. The senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not cited by the counsel for the plaintiffs. This act on the part of the judge would require further probe and appropriate action in accordance with law," Justice R Devdas said, while directing the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for action against the said civil judge.</p>.<p>In this case, a Civil Revision Petition was filed under Section 115 of the CPC, challenging the impugned order dated November 25, 2024, related to an original suit. The application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC was rejected.</p>.Karnataka Energy Minister dismisses allegation against meter supplying company.<p>While rejecting the defendants' application, the 9th Additional City Civil Judge relied on two Supreme Court cases — Jalan Trading Co Pvt Ltd Vs Millenium Telecom Ltd and Kvalrner Cemintation India Ltd Vs Achil Builders Pvt Ltd. However, the high court was informed that the Supreme Court had never delivered any such judgments.</p>.<p>Justice Devdas also noted that the plaintiffs, who had earlier filed a commercial suit, did not seek the court's permission to withdraw it before filing the suit in the civil court.</p>.<p>"…having regard to the express provisions contained in Rule 10A of Order VII, the matter stands remitted to the learned 9th Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, only to enable the plaintiffs to file an application in terms of clause (2) of Rule 10A of Order VII. For that purpose, the parties herein are directed to appear before the learned 9th Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on April 2, 2025, without further notice," the court said.</p>