- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12186 WP No. 6621 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6621 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S BLUE HORIZON HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 172/1, SRINIVAS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE N S PALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI SACHIN RAJU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY R A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 9/12, LAL BAZAAR STREET MERCHANTILE BUILDING BLOCK-E, 2ND FLOOR KOLKOTA-700 001 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12186 WP No. 6621 of 2025 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ROHAN AGARWAL 2. M/S PHOENIX ARC PRIVTATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, DANI CORPORATE PARK 158 CST ROAD, KALINA SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI -400 098 REP. BY ITS SENIOR ASSOCIATE VAIBHAV MAHESWARI. 3. M/S EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT EDELWEISS HOUSE, C.S.T. ROAD KALINA, MUMBAI BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SIBY ANTONY. 4. M/S A.S. MUNISWAMY RAJU HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY REP. BY ITS KARTHA MR. A.M. RAJU S/O LATE A.S. MUNISWAMY RAJU AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.536, 10TH MAIN 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041. 5. M/S GREEN PARK HOTELS AND RESORTS LTD COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12186 WP No. 6621 of 2025 4TH FLOOR, HOTEL GREEN PARK GREENLAND, BEGUMPET HYDERBAD-560016 TELANGANA REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.B.GAUTAM. 6. M/S. ORIENTAL HOTELS LTD COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT TAJ COROMANDEL, 37 MAHATMA GANDI ROAD CHENNAI-600 034 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.SANJAY KUMAR GUPT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY LXXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-85) ON I.A.NO. 18 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC IN O.S.NO. 25855/2017 DATED: 30.01.2025 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 H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12186 WP No. 6621 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.01.2025 passed on IA No.18 in Com.O.S.No.25855/2017 by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-85), Commercial Court, Bengaluru, whereby the said application has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money and injunction. After service of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through the counsel and filed the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed 9 issues. The same are extracted below: “(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants 1 and 4 executed registered mortgage deed dated 04.04.2014 by deposit of title deeds as claimed in para 9 of the plaint? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12186 WP No. 6621 of 2025 (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant had agreed to pay interest at 24% p.a. on the advance of Rs.5 crores? (3) Whether the defendants 1 and 4 prove that the suit is time barred? (4) Whether the defendants 1 and 4 prove that the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants 2 to 4? (5) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that the mortgage created in favour of the consortium lenders, SBM, Bank of India and SBI was prior in point of time? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5 crores from defendants 1 and 4 with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit as claimed? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the mortgage deed dated 28.05.2015 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is not binding? (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a direction to sell the suit property to recover the amount claimed in the suit? (9) What order or decree?” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12186 WP No. 6621 of 2025 3. When the matter was posted for the evidence of the parties, the defendant No.1 filed this application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & 11(d) of CPC for rejection of plaint for want of cause of action and barred by limitation. Since the cause of action and the limitation are mixed questions of law and facts, that issue can be decided only after the full-fledged trial. In respect of the limitation, there is already an issue framed by the trial court, i.e., issue No.3. On that ground, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 4. In view of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition stands disposed of. (ii) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. (iii) The trial court is directed to decide the matter, in accordance with law, without - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12186 WP No. 6621 of 2025 being influenced by the observations made in the course of this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0