Telangana High Court
Poorna Prakash Parvathala, vs M/S Worthywish Constructions Pvt. Ltd on 25 February, 2025
Author: T.Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.161 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Raja Sripathi
Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B.Arjun Rao, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Maruti Rao Srungarapu
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the
record.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order
dt.20.10.2021 passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at
Vikarabad (transferred now to Principal District Judge, Vikarabad) in
A.O.P.No.2 of 2021.
3. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that the 1st respondent
herein had obtained an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') without joining the appellants
herein as parties to the said proceeding even though the 1st respondent was
aware of the fact that all the appellants herein having purchased plots from
the 2nd respondent herein in the year 2021.
4. It is further contended by the appellants that on account of the order
obtained by the 1st respondent herein behind the back of the appellants, the
revenue authorities are not allowing the appellants to deal with their property
and since, the 1st respondent had obtained the order suppressing the true
facts, the impugned order cannot be sustained and thus, seeks for setting
aside the said order.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent would submit that it had entered
into an agreement on 02.11.2020 with the 2nd respondent for purchase of the
subject land in Sy.Nos.86/A/1 and 87/A/1 and since, the disputes have arisen
in relation to the aforesaid agreement, the 1st respondent had filed arbitration
application, vide Arb.Appln.No.42 of 2022 for appointment of an arbitrator
and the said application is pending consideration.
6. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that as the appellants
are claiming title to the subject property from the 2nd respondent subsequent
to the 2nd respondent entering into an agreement with the 1st respondent
herein and having failed to adhere to the terms of the agreement, the
appellants cannot claim any better title to the subject property, and if the
injunction order granted by the Court below is vacated, the same would
adversely affect the interests of the 1st respondent.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent, on the
other hand, while not disputing the fact of pendency of arbitration application
before this Court for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising
out of agreement of sale dt.02.11.2020, would however contend that the said
agreement of sale has been a subsequently cancelled deed and it is only fter
execution of the said cancellation deed, the 2nd respondent had sold part of
the subject land to the appellants.
8. Learned counsel would further submit that the 1st respondent herein
had filed the underlying petition under Section 9 of the Act, knowing fully well
that the 2nd respondent had sold part of the subject land in favour of the
appellants without making them parties.
9. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
10. The agreement of sale dt.02.11.2020 entered into between
respondent Nos.1 and 2 is subject matter of arbitration application filed
before this Court under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Act, wherein this Court by
order dt.04.08.2023, by noticing that the agreement filed by the 1st
respondent is not sufficiently stamped, directed for impounding of the
aforesaid agreement of sale for taking the same on record. Pursuant to the
aforesaid order, the 1st respondent herein had paid the deficit stamp duty of
Rs.8,99,800/- on 29.07.2024 along with one time penalty. Upon payment of
the aforesaid deficit stamp duty, the agreement of sale is placed on record of
the arbitration application filed for appointment of the arbitrator pending
consideration before this Court.
11. Since, the appellants herein claim to have purchased the subject
property from the 2nd respondent after cancellation of the aforesaid
agreement of sale, dt.02.11.2020 and inasmuch as the said agreement of
sale is subject matter of application for appointment of an arbitrator, this
Court is of the view that the appellants cannot claim any independent right
over the subject property other than that of the 2nd respondent. Since, the
arbitration application filed by the 1st respondent for referring the dispute
with the 2nd respondent herein for arbitration is pending consideration before
this Court, this Court is of the view that as the appellants herein are
purchasers of the subject land from the 2nd respondent, they ought to join
themselves in the aforesaid arbitration proceeding either by impleading
themselves in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act pending before
this Court or upon the arbitrator being appointed by this Court in
Arb.Appln.No.42 of 2022 and entering reference.
12. Further, as the appellants are subsequent purchasers of the subject
land in the year 2021, and inasmuch as the earlier agreement entered into by
the 2nd respondent, through whom they are claiming the subject property is
subject matter of dispute before this Court, the order of the Court below in
granting ex parte ad interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2
therein not allowing them from alienating or creating any third party interests
over the subject land admeasuring Acs.12.20 guntas in Sy.Nos.86/A/1 and
87/A/1 of Bilkal Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, in the considered
view of this Court does not suffer from any infirmity for being vacated.
13. In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of,
granting liberty to the appellants herein to seek impleadment in the
arbitration proceedings either in the application pending consideration before
this Court or before the arbitrator on a reference being made by this Court.
14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light
of this final order. No order as to costs.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:25.02.2025
________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
GJ
