Karnataka High Court
M/S Pushpam Realty vs Dega Devakumar Reddy on 31 July, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30198
WP No. 20089 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 20089 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S PUSHPAM REALTY
A REGISTERED FIRM
NO.191, 1ST CROSS, 1ST BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR EAST, BYRASANDRA,
BENGALURU-561203
REPRESENTED BY ABHIRAM M
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ANISH ACHARYA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by JUANITA DEGA DEVAKUMAR REDDY
THEJESWINI
S/O LATE DEGA RAMGOPAL REDDY,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
KARNATAKA RESIDING AT, VILLA NO.33,
COOK STREET, 10 DOWNING, WHITEFIELD, HOSKOTE
ROAD, KANNAMANGALA, BIDDARANAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 067,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ANJANA C.H., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30198
WP No. 20089 of 2024
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 10.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE IN
EX.PET.NO. 1075/2020 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO ANNX-A
AND DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 05.12.2023
UNDER SECTION 47 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 AT
ANNX-F AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, a developer who had entered into an
agreement of development with the respondent is before
this court aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-A
passed by the Executing Court, directing the petitioner
herein to deposit the original documents belonging to the
respondent herein, for inspection in order to adjudicate the
matter and it was directed that it would be better to keep
the documents in the court custody.
NC: 2024:KHC:30198
2. The brief facts that being the parties before this
court is that when the respondent went before the Arbitral
Tribunal seeking adjudication of the disputes between the
parties arising of the agreement that was entered into
between the parties at an undisputed point of time. It
appears that a compromise petition was filed by the
parties and the Arbitral Tribunal passed an order on
22.09.2018 in AC No.44/2018 on the basis of the
Memorandum of Understanding signed by the parties and
respective learned advocates, wherein it was recorded that
the parties are present before the Tribunal and they are
identified by their respective learned advocates. It was
recorded that the parties have stated that they have
entered into the settlement on their own volition and
without any duress from anybody. The Tribunal finds that
the settlement arrived at is fair and proper and therefore,
the arbitration case was disposed of in terms of the
memorandum of compromise extracted into the said
order.
NC: 2024:KHC:30198
3. It appears that the respondent thereafter filed a
execution case on 15.06.2020 with various prayers
including a direction to the judgment debtor to return the
original documents in respect of the immoveable
properties mentioned in the schedule. Thereafter, on an
application filed at the hands of the decree holder under
Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure, the Executing Court has proceeded to pass the
impugned order.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner seeks to contend that the execution case was
filed even before the award could be passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal. Moreover, it was pointed out from the
memorandum of settlement that the respondent, owner of
the property was required to execute a General Power of
Attorney in favour of the developer which would then
enable the developer to proceed to develop the property
in terms of the compromise petition. It is contended that
the respondent never executed General Power of Attorney
NC: 2024:KHC:30198
and therefore the respondent could not have approached
the Executing Court seeking execution of the award.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent however has taken this court through the
order sheet maintained by the Arbitral Tribunal and has
submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal disposed of the
arbitration case on 22.09.2018 in terms of the
memorandum of settlement filed by the parties. However,
subsequently the respondent wanted the award to be
registered in the office of jurisdictional Sub-Registrar.
However, it was informed to the respondent that the
award was not in the format prescribed and therefore it
was not possible for the registering authority to register
such a document. It is thereafter that the parties once
again went before the Arbitral Tribunal and subsequently
an order and award was passed on 14.12.2021. The
learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that there
is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that execution case was filed even before
NC: 2024:KHC:30198
the award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Learned
Senior Counsel would also add on instructions that
respondent has executed a Power of Attorney as required
in terms of memorandum of settlement.
6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels on both
the sides and on perusing the petition papers, this court is
of the considered opinion that the question as to whether
Power of Attorney was executed in terms of the
memorandum of settlement and in terms of the award is
something which has to be considered by the Executing
Court. Nevertheless, the impugned order only requires
the petitioner to deposit the original title deeds with the
Executing Court. It is also noticeable that in the operative
portion of the impugned order it has been directed that
the original document would be better keep in the custody
of the court.
7. In that view of the matter, this court is of the
considered opinion that in the interest of justice it would
be required that the petitioner should deposit the original
NC: 2024:KHC:30198
title deeds before the Executing Court and the original
documents shall remain in the custody of the court till an
enquiry is held and orders are passed by the Executing
Court subsequently.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of
directing the petitioner to deposit the original documents
before the executing court and the Executing Court shall
receive the same and keep the original documents in its
safe custody till the enquiry is held into the matter and
orders are passed by the Executing Court, in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
KLY
CT: JL
