Integrated Tribal Development ... vs M/S Water Health India Private ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1424 Tel

           THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI


           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.508 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor No.2, filed the

present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C.,

aggrieved by the order, dated 12.03.2020, passed in E.P.No.69 of

2019 in Arbitration Case No.103 of 2014 on the file of the Judge,

Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Adilabad, wherein the learned Judge ordered attachment of

petition schedule movable properties of the Judgment Debtors.

The facts which led to filing of the present Civil Revision

Petition are as under:

The 1st respondent/D.Hr filed Arbitration Application

No.103 of 2014 and an award was passed on 27.04.2018 in favour of

the 1st respondent and against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent

herein for a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.

from the date of notice till the date of passing Award and interest @

6% p.a., from the date of award till realisation and also awarded an

amount of Rs.40,800/- towards arbitration fee payable by the J.Drs

with interest @ 9% p.a. from 24.01.2018 to 07.09.2018, which is the

date of filing of E.P., which all accrued to Rs.13,53,535/-, but the

judgment debtors failed to pay the same. Hence, the 1st respondent

herein filed E.P.No.69 of 2019 under Order XXI, Rules 11, 54, 64 and

66 of the C.P.C. against the Judgment Debtors 1 and 2, seeking

attachment of their movable properties shown in the schedule of

the petition for realisation of the E.P. amount.

Petitioner along with Judgment Debtor No.1 filed counter

through the Government Pleader contending that if there is any

charge of the Decree Holder company, it will lie on the property of

the Judgment Debtor No.1 society and that the Judgment Debtors

may be allowed to file an appeal and in the meanwhile the

proceedings in the E.P. may be kept in abeyance.

During the course of enquiry neither oral nor any

documentary evidence was adduced by either of the parties.

After hearing the rival submissions made by both the parties,

the Court below ordered attachment of the E.P. schedule movable

properties of the judgment debtors on payment of process by

11.04.2020. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision

Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor No.2.

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration

appearing for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.2 and the learned

Counsel for the 1st respondent/Decree Holder and perused the

record.

The main argument of the learned Government Pleader for

Arbitration is that the Court below is not having jurisdiction to pass

the attachment order since the properties proposed to be attached

are situated in Agency Area. But, the Court below, without

appreciating the said jurisdiction aspect, passed the impugned

order, which is contrary to law. In support of his contentions, he

relied on the judgments of this Court in Madakam Venakteswara

Rao and others v. Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem1 and Puligujju

Vasantha Rao v. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Bhadrachalam2;.

Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Decree

Holder would submit that the dispute is between the non-tribe and

non-tribe as such the Court below is having jurisdiction to entertain

the E.P. and to pass the impugned order. In support of his

contentions, he relied on the following judgments of this Court:

1. Ashifaquddin and others v. Mohd. Azizuddin and others3

2. Bethi Ramaswamy and another v. Madala Seetharamaiah4

3. Saini Lakshmi and another v. Bolliepalli Janardhan @ Janardhan Chary and others5

It is well settled that the provisions barring the jurisdiction of

civil Courts should be strictly construed and unless there is a

specific provision barring the jurisdiction of civil Courts, the Courts

cannot infer bar of jurisdiction by a process of implied reasoning.

(2000) 5 ALD 32

(2013) 2 ALT 263 (D.B.)

AIR 1978 A.P. 354

(1998) 6 ALD 520

(2007) 1 ALD 250

The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred either expressly or

impliedly by the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, when the cause of

action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the civil Courts

even though the dispute is between non-tribals residing in the

scheduled area or the dispute between the non-tribals relates to

land situated in a scheduled area. So far as the Scheduled Areas in

Telangana area is concerned, there is no such limitation as

mentioned in sub-Section (4) of section 1 of C.P.C. (as amended).

Therefore, by virtue of provisions of Section 9 of C.P.C. ordinary

civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain all disputes of a civil

nature arising in the Scheduled Areas. The Agency Rules were

primarily intended for the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes only.

In Ashifaquddin and others v. Mohd. Azizuddin and others

(3 supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that there is nothing

in Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules from which it could

be inferred that the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Court to

entertain suits of civil nature between non-tribals is barred either

expressly or by necessary implication. In the said decision, the

Division Bench has also dealt with a case where the dispute was

between non-tribals in respect of the land situated in a scheduled

area and having considered all the relevant statutory provisions, it

was held that the civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits

between non-tribals.

In the instant case also, the dispute is between the non-tribals

and the property situated is in Telangana Area. It is also not in

dispute that the award was passed jointly and severally against the

petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent herein. The said award

passed by the arbitrator has become final because it has not been

challenged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and in view of the judgment of this Court in Ashifaquddin and

others v. Mohd. Azizuddin and others (3 supra), I am of the

considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the

order passed by the Court below and that there are no grounds

warranting interference of this Court.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 30.04.2021 Gsn/gkv