SRI. APOORVA DADHA vs M/S. SAI DURGA DEVELOPERS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55299
WP No. 27899 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010558882024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO.27899 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. APOORVA DADHA
S/O MAHER DADHA
AGED 40 YEARS
R/AT DADHA HOUSE NO.136
FLAT NO.108
TH TH
7 MAIN, 39 A CROSS
TH
5 BLOCK
BENGALURU – 560 041
2. SRI. ANKUSH DADHA
S/O MAHER DADHA
AGED 41 YEARS
R/AT DADHA HOUSE NO.136 FLAT NO.105,
TH TH
7 MAIN, 39 CROSS
TH
5 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 041
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. AYSHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SYED MOHID ALTAF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SAI DURGA DEVELOPERS
TH
FLAT NO.403, 4 FLOOR,
ST
MBM RESIDENCY, 1 MAIN ROAD,
SIMHA COLONY, DOCTOR’S LAYOUT,
CHIKKALLASANDRA,
BENGALURU – 560 061
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. A RAKESH KUMAR
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55299
WP No. 27899 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010558882024
AND MRS. V VASUDHA
(REGISTERED ENTITY UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT)
2. SRI. A RAKESH KUMAR
S/O A EKAMBARA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
PARTNER: M/S SAI DURGA DEVELOPERS,
TH
FLAT NO.403, 4 FLOOR,
SIMHA COLONY, DOCTOR’S LAYOUT,
CHIKKALLASANDRA
BENGALURU – 560 061
RESIDING AT NO.301
GANGOTHRI CASTLE
TH
11 CROSS ROAD,
ND
22 “A” MAIN ROAD
RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,
PADMANABHANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 070
3. SMT. V VASUDHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O SRI. C B PRASAD
RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.403,
TH
4 FLOOR, MBM RESIDENCY,
ST
1 MAIN ROAD, SIMHA COLONY
DOCTORS LAYOUT,
CHIKKALLASANDRA
BENGALURU – 560 061
4. D V SUDHEER CHOWDARY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O MR. KRIDHNAMA NAIDU
RESIDING AT MARIMANNU PALLE
ERAKOTA PALLE POST,
KALAKADA MANDAL POST
ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. SMT. BHARGAVI PRIYADARSHINI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O MR. PURUSHOTTAM NAIDU
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55299
WP No. 27899 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010558882024
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.23-8-76/A
ST
1 FLOOR, ROYAL NAGAR
TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 501
6. SMT.K DEDIPYA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
W/O MR. R NAVEEN KUMAR
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.401
MRC RESIDING AT NO.445/4
RD
33 CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT
BANGALORE – 560 070
7. MR. JEEVAN PAPA VENKATASWAMY
S/O P V REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RD
RESIDING AT 445/4, 33 CROSS,
TH TH
7 MAIN, 4 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 041
ALSO AT R/AT DADHA HOUSE,
NO.136 FLAT NO.107
TH TH TH
7 MAIN, 39 A CROSS, 5 BLOCK
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 041
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISHA S HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. H.R.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31-08-2024 PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL
COURT (CCH 89) AT BANGALORE IN COMMERCIAL OS
NO.810/2021 IN IA NO.16/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-A WHEREBY
THE APPLICATION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS WAS DISMISSED; AND ETC
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55299
WP No. 27899 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010558882024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order
dated 31.08.2024, passed by the City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Commercial Court (CCH-89) at Bangalore in
Commercial OS No.810/2021 [hereinafter referred to as
‘Impugned Order]. By the Impugned Order, an application
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
[hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’] in IA No. 16, which
sought to file additional documents has been dismissed by
the learned Trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits
that the suit was filed on 01.12.2021. He further submits
at that time the petitioner/plaintiff was not in the power
and possession of certain documents and thus on
20.06.2024, she filed an application for placing on record
certain documents, which included letters interse the
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55299
WP No. 27899 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010558882024
parties of the year 2022-2023 which were not in the power
and possession of the petitioner/plaintiff at the time of
filing of the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand contends that the suit is a commercial suit. He is
contented that even though an incorrect provision has
been invoked by the petitioner/plaintiff in the filing the
application, the documents that were sought to be placed
on record were placed on record belatedly and no ground
for this delay has been produced. He further submits that
the trial had already commenced.
4. An examination of the record shows that this Court
had while issuing notice in the matter, directed stay of the
proceedings on 21.10.2024 before the learned Trial Court.
The stay has is continued as is till today. The documents
which are sought to be produced on record, the list of
which is available in paragraph 5 of the affidavit to IA
No.16 reflects two documents of the year 2016-2017,
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55299
WP No. 27899 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010558882024
while the remaining are of a date pursuant to filing of the
suit.
5. In addition, it is stated in the affidavit that it was
necessary to file these additional documents upon a review
of the written statement. The learned counsel for the
petitioner/plaintiff has stressed on the fact that although
the application is not worded very well, these documents
are in pursuance of the fact that the project which was to
be completed by the respondent/defendants was delayed.
6. An examination of the Impugned Order shows that
the Impugned Order has been passed based on the fact
that the documents were filed belatedly. The documents
have not themselves been examined by the learned Trial
Court to see as to whether these documents would in fact
be relevant for the purposes of adjudicating the issues
involved in the suit.
7. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set-aside. The
learned Trial Court shall examine the documents sought to
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55299
WP No. 27899 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010558882024
be produced by the petitioner/plaintiff, and pass a
reasoned speaking order in accordance with law. Both
parties are at liberty to make their submissions before the
learned Trial Court. The petition is disposed of
accordingly. All pending applications are closed.
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
JJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
7