The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.2035 of 2022 on the file of the X junior Civil Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad pending disposal of the revision in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Thakur Vijayender Singh Sri Aadesh Varma Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Syed Ershaf Sri Syed lbraheem Anwer The Court delivered the following: Judgment HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAIiA C.M.A.No. 366 OF 2o24 JUDGMENT: Parties will hitherto be referred to as they arc arrayed in the main suit

2. Appellant is defendant in O.S. No. 2O35 of 2022 filed by respondent- plaintiff on the hle of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad for specific performance and for recovery of excess money paid under it. Therein, defendant had taken out I.A.No. 8al of 2022 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act) to refer the matter to arbitration as per Agreement of Arbitration in H.P. Agreement dated 18.02.2012.

3. 'l'he case of defendant before the Court below was that plaintiff gave wrong details about the agreements entered into between them as the Iirst agreement was entered on 18.O2.2O12 and not on O9.03.2O12; further the amount mentioned is also not correct as the same was Rs.2,80,O0O/- and not Rs.3,O0,OOO/-, as claimed. He further pleaded the suit is also not maintainable for the reason that H. P. Agreement entered into between themselves and plaintiff contains an l 2 agreement of Arbitration, as such, the Court below does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. He had drawn attention of the Court to Clause No.2 of Agreement of Arbitration and prayed to refer the matter to arbitration as per the said agreement. On the contrary, plaintiff, placing reliance on Clause No. 31(a) of H.P. agreement which postulates that ' in case of any dispute or litigation, parties shall submit to the -jurisdiction of the Courts in the city of Hyderabad only and in no other court', states that the civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the civil dispute. It is also his case that defendant never invoked the procedure either to settle the dispute or to terminate the sale agreement arrd it is very clear that they impliedly waived of the arbitration clause and had not allowed to approbate and reprobate according to their whims and [ancies.

4. The Court below having considered the material and submissions placed before it, while concurring with the pleading of ptaintiff that Clause 3 1(a) shows categorically that the parties i.e. defendant and plaintiff submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court in Hyderabad and that suit has been instituted in Courts in City of Hyderabad, observed that the entire, Hire Purchase Agreement does not disclose any I l I Arbitration Clause, as such came to an opinion that defendant has not made out any ground so as to refer the matter to Arbitration nor could show that jurisdiction of the Court is ousted because of Arbitration Clause and thus, dismissed the Petition.

5. This Court by order dated 16.07.2024 wlllle admitting the Appeal, directed that there should be interim stay as prayed for, initially, for a limited period and subsequently, the said order was extended from time to time.

6. lrarned counsel for petitioner - defendant Sri Thakur Vi-rayender Singh submits that the Court belou' has come to an (:rroneolrs conclusion that the Agreement has a clause in the which the parties have subjected to jurisdiction of the Courts which is contrary to the dicta laid down by the superior Courts in respect of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and appointment of Arbitrators lor adjudication of matters containing arbitration clause in the agreement.

7. Learned counsel Sri Syed Ershaf appearing for respondent - plaintiff filed written arguments. He submits that the Hire Pur<:hase Agreement was executed only for 24 months on 78.02.2012 and defendant had to be issued iegal notice \.* \ 4 demanding discharge of his part of contract on completion of 24 months of agreement time. Though defendant had stated that there are various agreements or renewal of agreements, they have not brought the same before the Court. He submits that defendant committed fraud by collecting the regular monthly installments lrom the last ten years which is not only against the said agreement but also the principles of natural justice. According to learned counsel, objective of the 1996 Act is for speedy disposal and disputes to be resolved efficiently and amicably but defendant is just using Section 8 of the Act as shield to keep away the intervention ofjudicial authority.

8. Perused the record. Admittedly, the Hire Purchase Agreement is valid for 24 months from 18.02.2O 12. Clause 31(a) thereof states that 'in case of any dispute or litigation, parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of the court in the city of Hyderabad only and in no other court'. Though defendant states that the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the suit, the very Clause 2 of the Agreement of Arbitration relied on by them reads as under: That all disputes, differences and or claims out of the said Hire Purchase Aereement including the disputes in respect of the interpretation, operation or effect of any clause of terms and conditions "7 ) of the said Agreement shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of or any statutory amendments thereof and the said disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Sri Praveen Vyapari, Advocate, Bank Street, Hyderabad'.

9. When the Hire Purchase Agreement itself, validity of which has come to an end by 18.02.2014, it cannot be said that the disputes arising out of the said Agreement shall be referred to arbitration only, they can as well be adjudicated by the competent civil Court of jurisdiction at Hyderabad as per Clause t 3l(a) of the H.P. Agreement. Further, as rightly contended by plaintiff, defendant has not come forward to invoke Section 8 of the Act on completion of 24 months time nor while issuing the reply legal notice on 06.05.2022 nor on the date of tiling his vakalath on the file of lower civil Court at Hyderabad. He wasted there months of judicial time from the date of hling vakalath instead of filing petition under Section 8 of the Act. In view of the same, he r:annot take shelter of the provisions under Section 8 of the Act. 10 There fore, as rightly held by the Court below, defendant had not made out any grounds so as to refer the matter to arbitrirtion nor could show that jurisdiction of the Court belor.r, is ousted because of Arbitration Clausr:. In the 6 light of the samc, this Court does not hnd aly merit and of the opinion that Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal IS accordingly, dismissed. No costs

72. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. \ To, Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER The X Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad One CC to Sri Aadesh Varma, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Syed lbraheem Anwer, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 4 ADK/DL HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 JUDGMENT' CMA.No.366 of 2024 .) I ( * '{ P.E ST4 lo lt AR 7W5 .S CT gO DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS