On a packed forenoon at the Karnataka High Court, Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty set aside a seven-year-old trial court order that had stalled a high-value civil suit involving a Bengaluru hotel property. The ruling brought relief to M/s Sree Gururaja Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which had challenged the stay granted in a ₹2.33 crore recovery case. The court was clear: inconsistent interim orders erode faith in the justice system and cannot be allowed to stand.
Background
The dispute has its roots in two separate civil suits between the same business entities. The earlier suit, filed in 2009, involved claims over renovation work and alleged collusion linked to a hotel’s northern block. That case was partly decreed, and both sides carried the fight to the High Court through regular first appeals, which are still pending.
Meanwhile, a second suit filed in 2011 sought damages of over ₹2.33 crore, alleging wrongful occupation of the hotel’s northern block for a different period and causing business losses. During its pendency, one of the defendants moved an application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), asking the trial court to pause the later suit until the appeals in the earlier case were decided.
The trial court accepted that request in 2018, effectively freezing the proceedings. This prompted the present writ petition.
Court’s Observations
Justice Shetty noted that an identical request to stay the same suit had earlier been rejected when made by other defendants, and that order had attained finality. “Courts must maintain consistency in orders passed during the same proceedings,” the bench observed, warning that contradictory decisions can make courts appear arbitrary.
Explaining Section 10 of the CPC in plain terms, the judge said it applies only when two cases involve the same core issue and deciding one would automatically settle the other. Here, although both suits talked about alleged collusion and money recovery, the causes of action, time periods, and reliefs were materially different.
The court also rejected the argument that a different defendant filing the stay application made it maintainable. Any general interim order, the bench said, binds all parties to the suit. Allowing repeated applications on the same issue would defeat judicial discipline.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the trial court’s 25 July 2018 order and rejected the stay application outright. As a result, proceedings in the ₹2.33 crore suit will now continue without obstruction.
Case Title: M/s Sree Gururaja Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Cimec Enterprises & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 36643 of 2018 (GM-CPC)
Case Type: Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Decision Date: 3 December 2025