ORDER :

P Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Peri Prabhakar and learned counsel for respondent Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Briefly noted to the extent relevant to decide the controversy the plaint averments are as under:

4. According to plaintiff, defendant approached him by saying that he is intending to develop Acs.5.00 land belonging to Mrs Ghousia Begum situated in Survey No.129/103, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as a joint venture and requested plaintiff to invest. Plaintiff agreed to invest Rs.2 crores and offered to be a sleeping partner. He was assured that project would be completed in three years. Plaintiff was requested to take the responsibility to sell the property. On 2.4.2009 Joint Venture Agreement was entered into between plaintiff and defendant. With fond hope of securing good returns, plaintiff invested Rs.2 crores. There was no progress in the joint venture in spite of several requests made. Disturbed by this attitude, plaintiff requested to refund his Rs.2 crores along with Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Plaintiff alleges that the defendant has diverted his money to another venture. Legal not