Unknown vs Jayesh H Pandey And Another1
2021 Latest Caselaw 3436 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3436 AP
Judgement Date : 8 September, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Unknown vs Jayesh H Pandey And Another1 on 8 September, 2021

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.993 of 2021

ORDER:-

1.    The present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India arises out of the order passed by the XII

Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, without

granting    interim     injunction   as    prayed   in   I.A.No.287/2021    in

O.S.No.68 of 2021.

2.    Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

has submitted that initially the court below has not inclined to pass

interim    injunction    exparte     and   issued   urgent   notice   to   the

respondents on 16.06.2021. Subsequently the matter underwent

several adjournments, despite filing counters by the respondents the

court below has not considered the application filed by the petitioner,

in I.A.No.287 of 2021 in O.S.No.68 of 2021.

3. Along with the revision, the petitioners filed the case status

details in O.S.No.68 of 2021, which show that on 09.07.2021 the suit

advanced to this day. Defendant filed a petition under section 8 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Same is under return. Hence call on

13.07.2021, I.A.No.321/21, I.A.287/21 Call on 13.07.2021. Thus from

09.07.2021 to 13.08.2021 the case was adjourned several times.

4. Learned senior counsel further contended that the court below

under the impression that just because of an application is pending

under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, not deciding

the I.A. filed by the petitioners for grant of injunction.

5. In support of his contention learned counsel further relied on

the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukanya

Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs Jayesh H Pandey and Another1, Rashtriya Ispat

Nigam Ltd. V. Verma Transport Co.2 and also the order passed by the

composite High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Thota Gurunath

Reddy vs. Continental Hospitals Private Limited and Ors..

6. In the Thota Gurunath Reddy's case, the High Court observed

the following :-

"52. Therefore, the argument now raised by the respondents 1 and 2 that in cases where an application under Section 45 is filed, the enquiry into all other applications should be put on hold, is an argument of convenience. Such an argument would defeat, in many cases, even the right of the parties flowing out of Section 8 or 45 and that will be death knell to the very arbitration agreement.

53. Therefore in fine, I am of the considered view that for the application under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the petitioner/plaintiff has a reasonably arguable defence. It is not as though the petitioner/plaintiff has raised a frivolous defence to the application under section 45 or as though the defence raised by the petitioner is not even worth the paper on which it is written. I reiterate that I am not deciding the fate of the application under section 45 in this revision, as it is not the subject matter of the revision. I just tried to find out if the petitioner has a reasonably arguable defence to the application under Section 45."

7. Relying on the above observations, learned senior counsel

submitted that the matter is posted to 21.09.2021 in the court below,

hence, without going to the merits of the case, sought a direction to

(2003) 5 SCC 531

10 (2003) 5 SCC 531

the court below to consider the application filed by the petitioners and

to dispose of the same on merits, without referring the pendency of

the application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996.

8. Considering the submissions made by the senior counsel and in

view of the observations made in the above cited decisions, without

going to the merits of the case, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed