THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.492 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor No.2, filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the order, dated 12.03.2020, passed in E.P.No.67 of 2019 in Arbitration Case No.105 of 2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, wherein the learned Judge ordered attachment of petition schedule movable properties of the Judgment Debtors.
The facts which led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as under:
The 1st respondent/D.Hr filed Arbitration Application No.105 of 2014 and an award was passed on 27.04.2018 in favour of the 1st respondent and against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein for a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of notice till the date of passing Award and interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of award till realisation and also awarded an amount of Rs.40,800/- towards arbitration fee payable by the J.Drs with interest @ 9% p.a. from 24.01.2018 to 07.09.2018, which is the date of filing of E.P., which all accrued to Rs.13,53,535/-, but the Judgment Debtors failed to pay the same. Hence, the 1st respondent herein filed E.P.No.67 of 2019 under Order XXI, Rules 11, 54, 64 and 2 66 of the C.P.C. against the Judgment Debtors 1 and 2, seeking attachment of their movable properties shown in the schedule of the petition for realisation of the E.P. amount.
Petitioner along with Judgment Debtor No.1 filed counter through the Government Pleader contending that if there is any charge of the Decree Holder company, it will lie on the property of the Judgment Debtor No.1 society and that the Judgment Debtors may be allowed to file an appeal and in the meanwhile the proceedings in the E.P. may be kept in abeyance.
During the course of enquiry neither oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced by either of the parties.
After hearing the rival submissions made by both the parties, the Court below ordered attachment of the E.P. schedule movable properties of the Judgment Debtors on payment of process by 11.04.2020. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor No.2.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.2 and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/Decree Holder and perused the record.
The main argument of the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration is that the Court below is not having jurisdiction to pass 3 the attachment order since the properties proposed to be attached are situated in Agency Area. But, the Court below, without appreciating the said jurisdiction aspect, passed the impugned order, which is contrary to law. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of this Court in Madakam Venakteswara Rao and others v. Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem1 and Puligujju Vasantha Rao v. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Bhadrachalam2;.
Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Decree Holder would submit that the dispute is between the non-tribe and non-tribe as such the Court below is having jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. and to pass the impugned order. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments of this Court:
1. Ashifaquddin and others v. Mohd. Azizuddin and others3
2. Bethi Ramaswamy and another v. Madala Seetharamaiah4
3. Saini Lakshmi and another v. Bolliepalli Janardhan @ Janardhan Chary and others5 It is well settled that the provisions barring the jurisdiction of civil Courts should be strictly construed and unless there is a specific provision barring the jurisdiction of civil Courts, the Courts cannot infer bar of jurisdiction by a process of implied reasoning. 1
(2000) 5 ALD 32 2 (2013) 2 ALT 263 (D.B.) 3 AIR 1978 A.P. 354 4 (1998) 6 ALD 520 5 (2007) 1 ALD 250 4 The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred either expressly or impliedly by the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, when the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the civil Courts even though the dispute is between non-tribals residing in the scheduled area or the dispute between the non-tribals relates to land situated in a scheduled area. So far as the Scheduled Areas in Telangana area is concerned, there is no such limitation as mentioned in sub-Section (4) of section 1 of C.P.C. (as amended). Therefore, by virtue of provisions of Section 9 of C.P.C. ordinary civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain all disputes of a civil nature arising in the Scheduled Areas. The Agency Rules were primarily intended for the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes only.
In Ashifaquddin and others v. Mohd. Azizuddin and others (3 supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that there is nothing in Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules from which it could be inferred that the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Court to entertain suits of civil nature between non-tribals is barred either expressly or by necessary implication. In the said decision, the Division Bench has also dealt with a case where the dispute was between non-tribals in respect of the land situated in a scheduled area and having considered all the relevant statutory provisions, it was held that the civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits between non-tribals.
5
In the instant case also, the dispute is between the non-tribals and the property situated is in Telangana Area. It is also not in dispute that the award was passed jointly and severally against the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent herein. The said award passed by the arbitrator has become final because it has not been challenged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment of this Court in Ashifaquddin and others v. Mohd. Azizuddin and others (3 supra), I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below and that there are no grounds warranting interference of this Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 30.04.2021 Gsn/gkv