- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10977 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI MAHESH MUNNIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O OF LATE MUNIYAPPA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.54 5TH 'A' CROSS, 21ST MAIN MCHS COLONY, BTM SECOND STAGE BENGALURU-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATRAMANA M K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI LIGOURY D MELLO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O OF LATE SALVADOR D' MELLO RESIDING AT P.O. BOX NO.57 P.C. 328, TECHNOFIT TRADING LLC AL RUMAIS, BARKHA, SULTANATE OF OMAN. 2. SMT. MARY MARGARET D'MELLO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O LIGOURY D'MELLO RESIDING AT P.O. BOX NO.57 P.C. 328, TECHNOFIT TRADING LLC AL RUMAIS, BARKHA, SULTANATE OF OMAN 3. EXCELSIOR UNITESD HOSPITALITY (P) LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013. REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 349 15TH A CROSS, 6TH MAIN 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 102 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 PRESENTLY AT NO. 348, 12TH MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, 5TH SECTOR BENGALURU-560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS SMT. DIVYA GIRISH & SHIVA PRAKASH GIRISH. 4. SRI SHIVA PRAKASH GIRISH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SON OF VIRUPAKSHAIAH SHIVA PRAKASH NO.348, 12TH MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560102. 5. SRI. KUKUTLA MALLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O OF JANAKI REDDY KUKUTLA RESIDING AT NO.101, 5TH CROSS FERNS CITY, OPP TOTAL MALL DODDANAKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI COLONY BENGALURU-560 037. 6. SRI.VENKATA SURESH REDDY BIRUDAVOLU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O OF VENKU REDDY BIRUDAVOLU RESIDING AT NO.269, KHB COLONY KORAMANGALA 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034. 7. SRI. VELLERU SARITHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O OF VELLERU BALACHANDA NAIDU RESIDING AT NO.255, SECOND FLOOR 5TH MAIN M.S.RAMAIAH CITY NEAR CORPORATION BANK J.P. NAGAR 8TH PHASE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560076. 8. SRI. VENUGOPALACHARY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O GORTHI SATYAMURTHY - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO.78, NEW NO.5 NATARAJA STREET DHANALAKSHMI COLONY VEDAPALANI, CHENNAI-600 026. 9. SRI. GORTHI VIDYA SAGAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O GORTHI SATYAMURTHY RESIDING AT NO.78, NEW NO.5 NATARAJA STREET, DHANALAKSHMI COLONY VEDAPALANI, CHENNAI-600 026. 10. MOONGADE RESORTS AND HOTES LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED UNDER LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT VILA NO.809/3, SECOND STREET FERNS PARADISE, DODDANEKUNDI MARATHIAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. 11. PURLIEU RESORTS AND HOTES LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED UNDER LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT VILA NO.809/3, SECOND STREET FERNS PARADISE, DODDANEKUNDI MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037 12. SMT. DIVYA GIRISH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O SHIVA PRAKASH GIRISH NO.348, 12TH MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT 5TH SECTOR, BENGALURU-560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANMOHAN P N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2: NOTICE TO R1,R3 TO R12 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 15.04.2025 ) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04-02-2025 PASSED IN I.A.NO.21 IN COMMERCIAL O.S. NO.352/2020 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) BY THE LXXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.90), PASSED THEREIN, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION 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 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.5 challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.21 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.352/2020, whereby the trial Court has allowed the said application. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money with interest. On service of suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have adduced their evidence. When the matter was posted for evidence of the DW-1, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.21 under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC. The trial Court by impugned order, allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- defendant No.5 has submitted that there is no contract between the plaintiffs and defendant No.5. Defendant No.5 was a partner of defendants Nos.9 and 10 Firms and they have been made as formal parties to the suit. The trial Court has directed defendant Nos.2 to 11 to produce the documents as mentioned in I.A.No.21 by the next date of hearing. The visa issued by the Sultanate of Oman to defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 11 to travel to Muscat in April 2017 and all the bank accounts held by the defendant Nos.2 to 8 and 11 from January 2017 to till date are not related to the plaintiffs’ transactions. He further submitted that the visa from 2017 is not available with the defendants and that the specific bank account has not been mentioned. Much less, none of the defendant No.5’s - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 bank accounts are related to the transactions involving the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Without considering these aspects, the trial Court has erred in allowing the application. 4. Per contra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the certified copy of the visa has been confronted to DW-1, and the same has been denied. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that if the Court directs, he will produce the passport and copy of the visa. He further submitted that the plaintiffs have entered into a contract with the defendants and in terms of the contract, have transferred money. He further submitted that the money transferred to defendant No.1 was, in turn, transferred to defendant Nos.9 and 10 accounts. There is an e-mail correspondence between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Since the suit is for the recovery of money and since the transfer of money has been denied by the defendants, to prove that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 money was transferred through the bank, these documents are necessary. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the recovery of money in a sum of Rs.7,69,36,876/- against defendant Nos.1 to 10, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of its realization and a sum of Rs.3,42,77,117.37/- being the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till 18.11.2020, and a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- to the plaintiffs as compensation for breach of contract and other consequential reliefs. 7. On appearance, the defendants have filed the written statement. The defendant No.5 has denied all the averments made in the plaint. On the basis of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues; “1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they have invested a total sum of Rs.9,26,45,000.00 in the projects 'Purlieu', 'Moonglade', '57 Acres Project' undertaken by the defendants? 2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the defendants No:1 to 11 are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.7,69,36,876.00? 3. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the defendants No:1 to 11 are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.3,42,77,117-37 being the interest as on 18.11.2020? 4. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the defendants No:1 to 11 are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000.00 towards compensation for breach of contract? 5. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any amount from them as the investment made by the plaintiffs is subject to market risk? 6. Whether the defendant No:5 proves that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against him is not maintainable - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 as the plaintiff's had no contractual relationship with him? 7. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs prayed in the suit? 8. What Order/decree?” 8. Thereafter, plaintiff No.2 adduced her evidence as PW-1. The petitioner herein was examined as DW-1. In the cross-examination, the plaintiffs confronted DW-1 regarding the visa for travel to Oman, which was sponsored by the plaintiffs through the Alfa Pipeline Project LLC, and marked as Ex.P28. DW-1 has deposed that it is a xerox copy and that he cannot answer the questions asked by the counsel. In further cross- examination, DW-1 deposed that if the Court directs, he will produce the passport and copy of the visa pertaining to his travel to Muscat, Oman in the month of April 2017. Even in respect of the bank accounts, on being questioned whether DW-1 has got only two bank accounts for the financial year 2017 to 2022, he has deposed that he has - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 got two to three bank accounts, but denied giving the details of the bank accounts and their branches. 9. The trial Court, on careful perusal of various paragraphs of the cross-examination of DW-1, noted that initially DW-1 deposed that if the Court directs, he would produce the passport and copy of the visa. Thereafter, he changed his version and stated that he is unable to produce the passport and copy of the visa as the same has been produced before the passport office for renewal and further, he deposed that he has to verify the passport and visa, which have been misplaced. 10. The trial Court after considering all these aspects and the evidence of the parties, has come to the conclusion that the documents mentioned in I.A.No.21 are necessary to decide the dispute between the parties and has accordingly allowed the application, i.e., I.A. No. 21 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXI Rule 1 of CPC. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15491 WP No. 10977 of 2025 11. Viewed from any angle, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. No good grounds are made out to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 13. In view of dismissal of petition, all pending I.As., if any, are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16