Karnataka High Court
Mr D Venkata Siva Narayana Reddy vs M/S Primus Homes on 26 September, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35513
WP No. 21620 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 21620 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. D. VENKATA SIVA NARAYANA REDDY,
S/O D. KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14, THIRUMALA ENCLAVE,
HALASAHALLI - THIPPASANDRA ROAD,
BEHIND VARTHUR POLICE STATION,
VARTHUR, BANGALORE - 560 087.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.M.RAJANNA SETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. PRIMUS HOMES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. P. NAGENDRA,
Digitally signed by
A K CHANDRIKA OFFICE AT NO.349, 15TH CROSS,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 17TH MAIN, SECTOR - IV,
HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102.
PRESENTLY AT NO.508-168/2,
2ND FLOOR, GUNJUR VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 087.
2. MR. SRINIVASA REDDY DEVIREDDY,
S/O AKKI REDDY DEVIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.103, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
B. CHANNASANDRA, BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35513
WP No. 21620 of 2023
3. MR. M. BHASKAR,
S/O M.K.MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11, 2ND CROSS,
3RD MAIN, CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 058.
4. MRS. TALLA SASIKALA,
W/O S.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.008, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, B.CHANNASANDRA, BANASWADI,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
5. MR. JAYAPAL NAIDU,
S/O MUNISWAMY,
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.D-415, 'THE GREENS',
DODDANEKKUNDI, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
6. MRS. SWETHA MALLA,
W/O JAGADEESH KUMAR MALLA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.B-207,
SMR VINAY GALAXY APARTMENTS,
HOODI CIRCLE, HOODI,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
7. MR. SRIDHAR BABU CHIRRAVURI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O ANJANEYA SARMA CHIRRAVURI,
R/AT NO.190, PAULIN DALE,
7TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
NEW THIPPASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 075.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:35513
WP No. 21620 of 2023
8. MRS. P. SHANTHI,
D/O P. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.349, 15TH CROSS,
17TH MAIN, SECTOR - 4,
HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102.
9. MR. P. NAGENDRA,
S/O P. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.349, 15TH CROSS,
17TH MAIN, SECTOR 4, HSR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
10. M/S. NOVOLIFE INNOVATIVE
STRUCTURES LLP,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER,
MR. P. NAGENDRA,
FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.508-168-2, 2ND FLOOR,
GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 087.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE X
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED
COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU TO DISPOSE OFF AA. NO.3/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE
- M WITHIN THE TIME FRAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:35513
WP No. 21620 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court praying for a direction to the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court) Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, to dispose of A.A.No.3/2023 within a time frame in accordance with law.
2. Heard Sri. J.M.Rajanna Setty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed A.A.No.3/2023 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1996 Act'). It is submitted that along with the petition, the petitioner had also filed I.A. seeking interim relief. On both main as well as I.A., emergent notice was ordered. On appearance, respondents filed their objection to the I.A. as well as to the main petition. In addition, the respondents also filed I.A. under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner as well as some of the respondents have completed their argument -5- NC: 2023:KHC:35513 WP No. 21620 of 2023 on main petition itself. The petition is being adjourned from time to time at the request of respondent No.10.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the matter is being heard on main itself, the petitioner has not pressed application for interim measure. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the petitioner prays to dispose of the petition in expeditious manner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that when a petition is filed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, the Court shall have to dispose of such petitions in a time bound manner. In the instant case, the petitioner as well as respondents have filed their objections and arguments of the petitioner as well as some of the respondents is also said to have been completed.
6. In view of the above circumstances, the trial Court to endeavor for early disposal of the petition with -6- NC: 2023:KHC:35513 WP No. 21620 of 2023 the cooperation of the parties. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40