Madras High Court
M.Kasilingam vs R.Ranikumari on 1 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
M.Kasilingam ...Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Ranikumari
2.A.Kanchana
3.S.Mahalakshmi
4.D.Srinivasan
5.G.Nandhini
6.R.Anitha ...Respondents
(R5 & R6 impleaded as party respondent. Vide order of Court
dated 14.08.2013 made in M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2013 in CMA.No.1945 of 2013)
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 rule 1(r) of
Civil Procedure Code, prayed to set aside the order of the learned District
Judge, Coimbatore dated 03.01.2013 in A.O.P.No.17 of 2012.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.M.Sriram
For R2 & R3 : A.Muthukumar
For R5 & R6 : Mr.Vijayakumar
Page No.1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the applicant in A.O.P.No.17 of 2012
filed against the respondents under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent from alienating
the petition mentioned property(ies) till the completion of Arbitration
Proceedings.
2. On hearing both sides the said petition was dismissed on
merits before the learned District Judge, Coimbatore dated 03.01.2013.
Aggrieved by the order the appellant preferred this appeal.
3. The question of law that arise for consideration is as to
“Whether the trial Judge erred in dismissing the petition
without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the
case?”
4. At the time of the arguments, both the counsel fairly
admits that after filing of the CMA, a retired District Judge was appointed as
a sole Arbitrator, in order to decide the issues between the parties and to pass
award expeditiously. Now before the Arbitrator both the parties appeared and
Page No.2/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2013
submitted their arguments.
5. But the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the Sole Arbitrator has to consider all the issues arising in O.P.No.17 of 2012
independently, without taking into account any of the findings made by the
PDJ while passing the order under Section 9 of the petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents raised objection
and submitted that in order to give finding with regard to the relief of
temporary injunction the trial Judge made observation with regard to certain
facts of the case which are necessary to decide the relief claimed in the
interim application.
7. Since the Arbitrator was appointed and arbitration
proceedings also initiated the relief claimed under Section 9 has become
infructuous and the parties at liberty to get any interim relief before the
Arbitrator.
Page No.3/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2013
8. Therefore, with the above observation this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently
connected Civil Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs.
01.04.2021
rri
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Page No.4/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2013
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
rri
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
01.04.2021
Page No.5/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
