- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 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. 12003 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA URBAN INFRA STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION LTD (KUIDFC) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT, (KUDCEMP), NO.2, DIVISION, MCC BUILDING, M.GROAD, MANGALURU- 575002. REP. BY SURESH, AGE 62 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SMT.SUMANGALA GACHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S CORAMANDEL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS CORAMANDEL PREST CRETE(P) LTD, REPRESENTED 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. REGISTERED BY COMPANIES ACT 1958. 2. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED AT M.G ROAD, MANGALORE-575 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF TEH CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO SUIT O.S.NO. 251/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, D.K MANGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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. 12003 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by 2nd defendant in Com.O.S.No.251/2020 (O.S. No.245/2018) 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.251/2020 (O.S.No.245/2018) against the petitioner – 2nd defendant and 2nd respondent – 1st defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,29,007/- 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 03.02.2024, 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.407/2024 which was allowed in part and the matter was remitted back to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 of 2025 Commercial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by holding as under:- “Heard learned advocate Mr. K.N. Nitesh 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.1 and learned advocate Smt. Sumangala Gurudev Gachchinnath. 2. This Commercial Appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is against the order in Com.O.S.No.251/2020 dated 03.02.2024 on the file of IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru. 2.1 The appellant is arrayed as a defendant; however, the appellant disputes this, stating that it is the wrong classification of party. 2.3 The case of the appellant is that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a commercial suit for recovery of money. Respondent No.1plaintiff is a private limited company engaged in civil construction, manufacturing, and laying water supply pipes. The plaintiff participated in the tender invited by the corporation for the supply, erection, testing and commissioning of a sewage treatment plant at Surathkal. As per the averments of the plaintiff in the plaint, the plaintiff completed the work within the timeline and the delay if any, was due to the defendants and also due to heavy rains in the locality. There was an abnormal delay in the arrangement of the power supply. As soon as the power - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 of 2025 supply was arranged, the project was commissioned. Due to the delay in completing the project attributable to the defendants, the plaintiff incurred additional expenditure, which was claimed as reimbursement. 3. As per the order of the Commercial Court, the defendants, on service of notice, appeared through counsel and filed a written statement denying their liability, among various other grounds. 3.1 The Commercial Court framed issues. 3.2 As can be noticed from the judgment and decree of the Commercial Court, evidence has been lead by the plaintiff. The order further records that the defendants remained absent and have not lead any evidence. 3.3 The Commercial Court decreed the suit entitling the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.17,77,000/- from defendants with interest at 12% p.a. on the date of suit till realization. 4. The appellant has preferred this appeal with an application on I.A.No.3 of 2024 for permission to prosecute. The averments in the affidavit accompanying the application state that the appellant was not arrayed as a party- respondent in the suit before the Commercial Court. The Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation Limited and the appellant Mangalore City Corporation are independent statutory bodies. The Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation Limited is shown to be represented by the Mangalore City Corporation. As a result of this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 of 2025 nomenclature, the appellant defendants were not made as parties and as a result, deprived of the right to defend the suit. The judgment and decree violate the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant invited tenders for designing, constructing and commissioning sewage treatment plant. The tender was time specific with an obligation to operate and maintain with performance guarantee. The claim made in the suit was not justifiable. In view of the wrong description of the parties in the suit, the appellant was not served with the notice. The same resulted in a decree fastening the liability on this appellant. 5.1 Learned advocate further submits that the impugned judgment and decree violates principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the appellant be allowed to participate in the suit by remitting to the Commercial Court. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.M. Chandrashekar along with learned advocate Mr. N. Murali appearing for the plaintiff respondent No.1 submits that as recorded in the judgment and decree, the defendants were served and written statement was filed. It is submitted that it is a case of non-availing of the opportunity and not non-providing of opportunity. The appellant has chosen not to participate in the suit and lead evidence on its volition, which would not violate principles of natural justice. With the above submission learned Senior Advocate strongly opposes the prayer made for remand. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 of 2025 7. Having considered the submission of learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the appeal papers, it is apparent from the record that the Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation Limited and the Mangalore City Corporation are two separate and independent statutory bodies. The Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation Limited is erroneously described in the suit as being represented by the Mangalore City Corporation. On the face of it, the description of the parties in the suit is incorrect. In light of this, the Court finds substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. In so far as the opportunity afforded to the appellant to participate in the suit is concerned, it is evident from the Commercial Court records that the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statements. However, it is also noted in the same judgment that the defendants were absent and did not come forward to lead evidence in support of their defense, resulting in the defense evidence being treated as nil. Furthermore, it is to be noted that counsel representing the Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation Limited is shown as counsel representing the Mangalore City Corporation. The inadvertence recording of appearance of the advocates representing the parties by the Commercial Court cannot be concluded that the appellant was duly served or effectively represented by counsel. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 of 2025 9. Learned counsel for both parties have raised various contentions on the merits of the case. However, in light of the order that is proposed to be passed by this Court, the contentions raised by the learned advocates on the merits are left open. These issues shall be considered and addressed by the Commercial Court in due course. 10. The claim is made against the appellant herein. However, it is noteworthy that the appellant is not included in the array of party defendant in the suit. Given that the appellant was not a party to the suit, it cannot be concluded that the appellant was served with notice, represented by counsel or filed a written statement. The order of the Commercial Court clearly records the absence of the defendants. In this regard, the decree imposing liability on the appellant was passed without granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 11. The dispute concerning the recovery arises from the tender invited by the appellant and the contract awarded in favor of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The process of adjudicating this dispute requires the recording of evidence and the production of relevant documents. Due to the incorrect description of the parties in the suit, the appellant was not served with notice of the suit, thereby being deprived of the opportunity to defend itself. Given the nature of the dispute, it cannot be effectively adjudicated without affording the parties the opportunity to present their evidence. The appellant must be given a fair opportunity to defend itself and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 of 2025 lead evidence. In this regard, the matter needs to be remitted to the Commercial Court for appropriate proceedings. 12. The suit involves the recovery of money arising from a contractual dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 1. The appellant must be provided an opportunity to defend itself and lead evidence. At the same time, respondent No. 1 has the benefit of the decree passed in its favor. In remitting the matter to allow the appellant to defend and present evidence, it is necessary to protect the interests of respondent No. 1 as well. The interests of Respondent No.1 can be protected and ensured by directing the appellant to deposit the entire decree amount, along with interest. As of the date of the appeal, the total amount in question in the suit is Rs. 33,71,325/-. 13. In the light of the above finding and observations, the following, ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 03.02.2024 in Com.O.S.No.251/2020 is set aside to the file of the IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru. (iii) The appellant is at liberty to file its defense and lead evidence. (iv) The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.33,71,325/- before the Commercial Court within four weeks. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 of 2025 (v) All the parties are directed to co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit which shall not be later than 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.407/2024, 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.407/2024 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 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.407/2024 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 03.02.2024 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.407/2024, 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4333 WP No. 12003 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.251/2020 (O.S.No.245/2018) 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