- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24085 WP No. 3259 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3259 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S MYTHRI HOUSING PVT LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 OFFICE AT: SOLUS, FLOOR 11, NO.2 1ST CROSS, J C ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY GENERAL MANAGER (LIAISONING) MR GURURAJ K … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR R S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SIVASANKARAN M S S/O M V SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. MR SIVARAMAKRISHNAN M S S/O M V SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.748/B 1ST A CROSS, A BLOCK Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24085 WP No. 3259 of 2025 VINAYAKA NAGAR HAL OLD AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE - 560 017 3. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE AT 1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING BACKSIDE CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 4. M/S GURURAJ ENTERPRISES PVT LTD NO.8, GROUND FLOOR PLOT NO.13/39 JIVAN MAHARAJ CHAWL MOTA MANDIR, JM COMPOUND CHANDI GULLY MUMBAI - 400 002 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. VINOD KUMAR M. HIRANI … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SINDHU V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI GAUTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2024 IN COMPLAINT NO. CMP/361/2023 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24085 WP No. 3259 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed in CMP No.361/2023 by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru under Section 31 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short 'RERA Act'). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that against the said judgment which is a final order, there is a provision for appeal under Section 44(1) of the RERA Act. 3. In light of the same, taking note of the various contentions raised which would also involve factual adjudication, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy as noticed above. 4. To enable the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, the Registry is directed to return the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24085 WP No. 3259 of 2025 certified copies/original documents to the petitioner after retaining its Photostat copies for the record purpose. 5. The petitioner to take necessary steps to avail of the substantive remedy. In order to enable the petitioner to take appropriate recourse, the impugned judgment would be stayed for a period of three weeks. 6. It is open for the petitioner to raise before the Appellate Authority while calculating the limitation, the time spent before this Court which may be taken note of appropriately. All contentions are kept open. 7. Needless to state that on the lapse of three weeks, in the absence of interim order against the judgment, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the judgment. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR