Sri Balasubramanya v. M/S Mysore Minerals Private Ltd

NC:(2026:KHC:15149( WP(No.(4204(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(13 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(4204(OF(2026((GM-CPC)( BETWEEN:(( ( SRI,,BALASUBRAMANYA, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, SON,OF,LATE,M.,K.,ANJANAPPA, RESIDENT,OF,NO.3406, 15TH,CROSS,,R.P.ROAD, NANJANGUD,TALUK,,

MYSURU,570,024., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,B,SHARATH,KUMAR.,,ADVOCATE),

AND:( ( M/S,MYSORE,MINERALS,PRIVATE,LTD.,, HAVING,REGISTERED,OFFICE,AT,,

OLD,KESARE,,SY.NO.175,,NO.85, MYSURU,,REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, Digitallytisignedtiby AUTHORISED,PERSON,DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY AGED,ABOUT,38,YEARS, Location:0H IGH S/O,LATE,NANJUNDAPPA, COURTOF R/AT,60,,1ST,MAIN,KARNATAKA NEAR,JANATHA,SAW,MILL, MEDARA,BLOCK,,BAMBOO,BAZAR, MYSURU,570,001., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,ABHISHEK,A.,,ADVOCATE), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 25-06-2025, ANNEXURE-A, PASSED, IN,COM.O.S.NO.51/2025,,ON,I.A.NO.IV,I.E.,,AN,APPLICATION, FILED,UNDER,ORDER,VII,RULE,10,AND,R/W,SECTION,151,OF, THE,CODE,OF,CIVIL,PROCEDURE,FILED,BY,THE,DEFENDANTS,,

TO RETURN THE PLAINT, BY ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION I.A.NO.IV IN SUIT COM.O.S.NO.51/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT AND II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEUXRE-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶1In this writ petition, the petitioner-defendant has called in question the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) on I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.51/2025 vide Annexure-A, whereby the said application filed for return of the plaint has been rejected.

¶2For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶3The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. On service of summons, petitioner-defendant appeared through counsel and filed his written statement. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.IV under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. Meanwhile, the Trial Court allowed the applications filed by the plaintiff on 08.07.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed COMAP Nos.489/2025 and 490/2025. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.01.2026, dismissed the said appeals. The Trial Court, by order dated 25.06.2025, rejected I.A.No.IV. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-defendant contended that the suit is valued at a sum of Rs.1,000/- and therefore the same is less than the specified value as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as

the 'Act' for short). Without considering this aspect of the matter, the application filed by the defendant has been rejected.

¶5Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff contended that order passed by Commercial Court on the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the Commercial Appeals by order dated 19.01.2026. A commercial appeal, i.e., COMAP No.417/2025, filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the rejection of I.A.No.IV was withdrawn on 19.01.2026 without liberty. He further submitted that Rs.1,000/- mentioned in the plaint is only for the purpose of determination of court fee and not the specified value as defined under Sections 2(1)(i) and 12 of the Act. Hence, he sought dismissal of the writ petition.

¶6Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶7The petitioner-defendant had filed I.A.No.IV under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for return of the plaint only on the ground that the suit has been valued at Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of determination of court fee. For maintaining a commercial dispute, as per Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, the suit must satisfy the requirement of specified value. The said provision is extracted below: "2. (1)xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

(i) "Specified Value", in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with section 12 which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government."

¶8Section 12 of the Act specifies the manner of determination of specified value. The amount mentioned for the purpose of court fee cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the specified value. The specified value has to be determined in

accordance with Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the rejection of I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is justifiable.

¶9However, since the petitioner-defendant has raised a jurisdictional issue, the Trial Court, while framing issues, shall frame an issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of the specified value. Further, before deciding the other issues, the Trial Court is directed to first decide the said issue relating to specified value in order to determine whether the suit is maintainable before the said Commercial Court or not.

¶10With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶11All the contentions of the parties are left open.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28