Rajasthan High Court
Devron Ascenda Private Limited vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran ... on 27 May, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5995/2022
Devron Ascenda Private Limited, Through Its Authorized
Signatory, Mr. Rajneesh Singhvi, Having Its Registered Office
Address At 24, Narpat Nagar (Amar Nagar), Opposite Luni
Panchayat Samiti, Jodhpur Rajasthan 342001.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (RRVPNL),
Having Its Registered Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur - 302005.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi with
Mr. Ayush Singh &
Mr. Swapnil S. Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
27/05/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by
the learned Commercial Court No.3, Jaipur in CIS No.347/2019
whereby, an application filed by the petitioner-defendant under
Section 10 CPC, has been dismissed.
The facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit
for recovery against the petitioner-defendant in the year 2008. At
the stage when final arguments of the plaintiff were heard, the
petitioner moved an application under Section 10 CPC stating
therein that the suit is based on decision of the Settlement
Committee dated 25.07.2005 whereagainst the petitioner has filed
(2 of 3) [CW-5995/2022]
objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (for brevity, "the Act of 1996") which came to be allowed by
the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur vide its
order dated 05.01.2011 and a civil misc. appeal thereagainst is
pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court and hence,
the suit on similar facts deserved to be stayed. The application has
bee dismissed by the learned Commercial Court vide its order
dated 05.04.2022, impugned herein.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that since, the subject matter of dispute between the
same parties was common in the suit and the pending civil misc.
appeal before this Court, it was obligatory upon the learned
Commercial Court to have stayed the suit filed by the respondent.
He, in support of his submissions relies upon an order of this Court
dated 03.02.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.19509/2019: Mahesh Kumar Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors.
Heard. Considered.
The order dated 05.04.2022 reveals that the application filed
by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned Commercial
Court on the premise that with regard to the question raised by
the petitioner in the application, the Issues No.3 & 4 were framed
as under:
"Issue No.3: Whether, the suit was liable to be
dismissed in view of reasons contained in Para No.1 of
the written statement, the arbitration case being
pending in the Court of learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan.
(3 of 3) [CW-5995/2022]
Issue No.4: Whether, the suit was maintainable
under Section 10 CPC for the reasons stated in Para 2
of the written statement."
It has also been observed by the learned Commercial Court
that it was one of the oldest cases pending therein since the year,
2008 and the application was filed by the petitioner after
conclusion of the final arguments by the plaintiff-respondent.
This Court has gone through the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 10 CPC and finds that it is bereft of any
reason as to why the application has been moved with such
inordinate delay, i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the suit
when, indisputably, objections filed by it under Section 34 of the
Act of 1996 came to be allowed way back on 05.01.2011. It
demonstrates that the application is not bona fide.
In any case, since the Issues No.3 & 4 have already been
framed by the learned commercial Court touching the question
sought to be raised by the petitioner in its application filed under
Section 10 CPC, this Court deems it just and proper not to
interfere with the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned
Commercial Court in its judicious discretion assigning cogent
reasons especially when the matter is fixed for final arguments.
The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in case of
Mahesh Kumar (supra) is of no assistance to him having been
rendered in entirely different circumstances.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
