- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12086 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA URBAN INFRA STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION LTD (KUIDFC) REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT, (KUDCEMP), 2, DIVISION, MCC BUILDING, M.GROAD, MANGALURU-575 002, REP. BY SURESH, 62 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SMT.SUMANGALA GACHINAMATH, ADOCATE) AND: 1. M/S CORAMANDEL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS CORAMANDEL PRESTCRETE (P) LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DR.L.V.SUBBA REDDY S/O. LATE L SUBBA REDDY, PLOT 319, II FLOOR, AYYAPPA SOCIETY, NEAR Y.S.R STATUTE, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD -81. 2. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED AT M.G ROAD, MANGALORE-575002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURALI N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO SUIT O.S NO. 08/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, D.K. MANGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by 2nd defendant in Com.O.S.No.9/2020 (O.S. No.8/2018) on the file of the Commercial Court is directed against the impugned order dated 20.03.2025, whereby the Commercial Court rejected the request of the petitioner to file written statement and contest the suit on merits. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 1st respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit in Com.O.S.No.9/2020(O.S.No.8/2018) against the petitioner – 2nd defendant and 2nd respondent – 1st defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,82,502/- together with interest and other reliefs. In the said suit, both petitioner as well as 2nd respondent – 2nd defendant remained ex-parte and did not contest the suit. By judgment and decree dated 09.03.2023, the Commercial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree which had been passed jointly and severally as against both petitioner as well as 2nd respondent – 1st defendant, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal in COMAP No.406/2024 which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Commercial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by holding as under:- “Heard learned advocate Mr. K.N. Nitish for learned advocate Mr. K.V. Narasimhan for the appellant, learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. M. Chandrashekar along with learned advocate Mr. N. Murali for respondent No.2. 2. This commercial appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is against the order in Com.O.S. No.9 of 2020 dated 09.03.2023 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. 3. The appellant was defendant No.1 before the commercial court. The case of the appellant is that respondent No.1 is engaged in civil construction and manufacturing and laying pipes for water supply. The appellant invited tenders for design, supply, construction, erection, testing and commissioning of sewage treatment plant and other allied work. Respondent No.1 was a successful bidder and entered into an agreement. The agreement value was Rs.10,11,95,493.80/- and the contract period is 15 months to commence on 15.03.2004. The plaint averments further stated that due to heavy rains, cyclones, local agitations, delay in approval of drawings, delay in supply of power and various other acts, the execution was delayed. Due to the delay, respondent No.1 incurred additional expenditure which was sought to be reimbursed. 4. Respondent No.1 preferred suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,82,502/- with interest at 18% per annum. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 5. The Commercial Court has recorded that the summons were served on the defendants, who were represented by their advocates and no written statement was filed. 6. The plaintiff has lead its evidence and marked 76 exhibits. The evidence of the defendants is taken as NIL. The Commercial Court by judgment and decree dated 09.03.2023 decreed the suit for Rs.76,06,400/- with interest. 7. Learned advocate Mr. K.N. Nitish for learned advocate Mr. K.V. Narasimhan appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was defendant No.1. Respondent No.2- Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation Limited is described as represented by the appellant. Learned advocate would further submit that the advocate representing defendant No.2 is shown as advocate representing defendant No.1. It is submitted that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are two independent statutory bodies. 8. Learned advocate would further submits that the summons were not served on the appellant, no written statement was filed and no opportunity to defend the claim. With the aforesaid submissions, the learned advocate would prays to set aside the judgment and award and remit the matter for fresh consideration. 9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. M. Chandrashekar appearing for respondent No.1 would vehemently oppose the prayer. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the appellant as a statutory body was well within the knowledge of the pendency of the suit. The appellant's non-participation in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 suit was due to its own volition. It is the case of non availing of opportunity and not non-providing of opportunity. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for both parties, it emerges that the suit for recovery arose from a conflict or dispute concerning the agreement entered into pursuant to tenders for the execution of various works. A perusal of the averments in the plaint prima facie indicates the existence and involvement of factual issues. To adjudicate these factual aspects, the Commercial Court is required to undertake the process of recording evidence. 11. This Court, without examining further whether the appellant had adequate opportunity before the Commercial Court, is firmly of the view that, in the interest of ensuring substantial justice, the dispute between the parties should be adjudicated with a full-fledged trial and on consideration of the evidence. 12. The appellant contends that the summons were not served due to an incorrect description of the parties in the suit and that the advocate representing defendant No.2 was mistakenly considered to represent defendant No.1/appellant, which reflects an incorrect understanding. However, this Court finds it unnecessary to delve into this issue at present in view of the order proposed to be passed. 13. Without examining the correctness or otherwise of the arguments advanced by the learned advocates regarding the service of summons and the merits, this Court is of the view that, to ensure substantial justice through a full-fledged trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 involving the recording of both oral and documentary evidence, the entire suit requires reconsideration. 14. In order to enable the above referred exercise, the judgment and decree of the Commercial Court has to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. 15. The subject suit is for the recovery of money. While granting an opportunity to the appellant-Corporation, it is equally important to protect the commercial interests of respondent No.1. To ensure a fair balance of equity and interests for both parties, it is essential and necessary to impose conditions. The total value of the suit as of the date of filing the appeal is Rs.1,11,95,156/- 16. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following, O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree in Com.O.S. No.9 of 2020 dated 09.03.2023 are set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration to the IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. (iii) The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,11,95,156/- before the Commercial Court within four weeks. (iv) The appellant is at liberty to file its defense and lead evidence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 (v) All parties are directed to cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the suit, which shall be concluded within six months. In view of the above, the interlocutory application for stay would not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of.” 3. In pursuance of the said order passed by this Court in COMAP No.406/2024, the 2nd respondent - - 1st defendant has deposited the entire amount as directed by this Court. 4. It is the limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition that in the light of the provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 4 CPC, the setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against both the petitioner – 2nd defendant and 2nd respondent – 1st defendant by this Court in COMAP No.406/2024 would enure to the benefit of the petitioner – 2nd defendant also and as such, the Commercial Court committed an error in declining to receive the written statement filed by the petitioner on record and permit the petitioner to contest the suit on merits. In this context, it is pertinent to extract Order XLI Rule 4 CPC, which reads as under: ORDER XLI APPEALS FROM ORIGINAL DECREES - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 4. One of several plaintiffs or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all.– Where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the Appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be.” 5. If the final order passed by this Court in COMAP No.406/2024 dated 19.12.2024 is examined with reference to the provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 4 CPC, it becomes unmistakably clear that the judgment and decree passed by the Commercial Court dated 09.03.2023 was passed against both the petitioner and 2nd respondent and in view of setting aside of the said judgment in decree by this Court in COMAP No.406/2024, the same would enure to the benefit of the petitioner also, who would be entitled to file its written statement and contest the suit on merits. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12086 of 2025 declining to receive the written statement of the petitioner on record is contrary to law and facts and has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the commercial court in Com.O.S.No.9/2020 (O.S.No.8/2018) is hereby set aside. (iii) The commercial court is directed to accept the written statement of the petitioner on record and permit the petitioner as well as 2nd respondent to contest the suit on merits. (iv) The Commercial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits within period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64