Karnataka High Court
Miss Rukshana Jal Nanji vs So Called Rex Builders And Developers on 24 September, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13034-DB
RFA No. 100470 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100470 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MISS. RUKSHANA JAL NANJI
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.131,
LODGE ROAD, CAMP, BELAGAVI
AND ALSO AT E -9, KONARK SPLENDOUR,
WADGOANSHERI, PUNE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNASWAMY BASAYYA HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAMREEN
AYUB
DESHNUR 1. SO-CALLED REX BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
SAMREEN AYUB BY ITS ALLEGED PARTNERS,
DESHNUR
HIGH COURT OF REGISTERED BY FORGING
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH THE SIGNATURES OF THE PLAINTIFF,
HER LATE MOTHER AND BROTHER,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CTD NO.5650,
"AADI SHAKTI TOWER",
KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590002.
2. SHRI. GAJANAND S/O. KRISHNA BANDURGE
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. CCB NO.447 , MALHARI NIVAS,
5TH CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13034-DB
RFA No. 100470 of 2025
HC-KAR
BELAGAVI-590002.
3. SHRI. SWAPNEEL S/O. ANIL BHADALE
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. CTS NO.89, FLAT NO. T-4,
CHINTAMANI RESIDENCY, MANGALWAR PET,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590002.
4. SHRI. DEEPAK PAVANU NARVEKAR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 11/120, PARWATI NIVAS,
SUBHASH MARKET, HINDWADI,
BELAGAVI-590002.
5. SHRI. PRASHANT M. BHADALE
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 32, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR,
2ND STAGE, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590002.
6. SHRI. NASIRPASHA UMARPASHA INAMDAR
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. 2384, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15.09.2025 PASSED BY THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., BELAGAVI
IN O.S.NO 347/2025 ON IA NO. 3 AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT
I.A. NO. 3 FILED BY DEFENDANT NO. 2 TO 4.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13034-DB
RFA No. 100470 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
This appeal by the plaintiff in OS No.347/2025 is
directed against the impugned order dated 15.09.2025
passed on IA No.3 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Belagavi1, whereby the application in IA No.3 filed by
the respondents/defendants under Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962 read with Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083, seeking
reference of the dispute to Arbitrator in terms of the
Arbitration Clause No.13 mentioned in the Indenture of
partnership dated 30.08.2016 was allowed by the Trial
Court.
2. The Registry has raised an objection with regard
to the maintainability of the present appeal on the ground
that the impugned order is neither a decree nor a deemed
For short, 'the Trial Court'
For short, 'the Act, 1996'
For short, 'CPC'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13034-DB
HC-KAR
decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of CPC and
consequently, the appeal is not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
since the impugned order arises out of an application filed
by the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC, the impugned order tantamounts to rejection of plaint
and consequently, such rejection amounts to a decree
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of CPC and as such, the
present appeal is maintainable.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants before the Trial Court submits that
though the application is filed by invoking Order VII Rule 11
of CPC along with Section 8 of the Act, 1996, the source of
power for the Trial Court to allow the application is not
traceable to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, but traceable to
Section 8 of the Act, 1996, and consequently, the appeal
would not be maintainable, and the appellant would
necessarily have to file an appropriate Civil Revision Petition
(CRP) instead of the present appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13034-DB
HC-KAR
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and undisputed fact that the impugned order has been
passed on an application in IA No.3 filed by the
respondents/defendants under Section 8 of the Act, 1996,
which has been invoked by the respondents/defendants,
and the joint submissions made by both sides, we deem it
just and appropriate to convert the present appeal into an
appropriate Civil Revision Petition (CRP) by issuing
directions in this regard.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby disposed off
for statistical purpose by directing for
conversion of the present Regular First
Appeal into an appropriate Civil Revision
Petition (CRP) under Section 115 of CPC.
(ii) Registry is directed to permit the
appellant to carry out necessary corrections
in the appeal papers for the purpose of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13034-DB
HC-KAR
conversion of the present appeal into an
appropriate Civil Revision Petition (CRP)
forthwith.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SMM / Ct:vh
