Karnataka High Court
M/S Madhu Fabs Pvt Ltd vs Sri P Sudheendra Reddy on 24 January, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:3318
RFA No. 58 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
M/S MADHU FABS PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. S K MURALEEI
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.150/2
KIADB, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
3rd PHASE, (FORMED IN SURVEY NO.151)
LAGEERE VILLAGE, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD
ADJOINING MEIL LAYOUT BUS STOP
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560058
AND ALSO R/AT OM ENCLAVE NO.3-B
II A CROSS, RAJIV GANDHINAGAR
LAGGERE, PEENYA POST
BENGALURU - 560058.
Digitally signed
by ...APPELLANT
HEMALATHA A
Location: High (BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR L., ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. SRI P SUDHEENDRA REDDY
S/O P.S REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.102, 1st FLOOR
PRESTIGE SUKRI SERENITY
NO.38/1. KANAKAPUR ROAD
NEAR ARUMUGAM CIRCLE
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE -560009.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:3318
RFA No. 58 of 2024
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KARANTAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE 560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BBMP N.R SQUARE
BANGALORE 560002.
4. SRI.VISHWANATH V ANGADI
ARBITRATION CENTRE
KARNATAKA (DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL)
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2023
PASSED ON I.A.NO.VII IN OS.NO.2899/2023 ON THE FILE OF
THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.VII FILED UNDER ORDER
VII RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, FOR
REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 96 of CPC is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-43) on I.A.No.VII filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rules 11 (a), (b) -3- NC: 2024:KHC:3318 RFA No. 58 of 2024 and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.2899/2023, whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 and rejected the plaint.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director. The plaintiff has entered into a lease deed dated 04.05.2009 with defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule industrial plot for 15 years commencing from 01.07.2009 on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. Further case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 has filed the arbitration case in A.C.No.115/2015 before defendant No.4/Arbritrator directing the plaintiff company to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also to pay a sum of Rs.12,10,104/- towards the arrears of rent with interest. The plaintiff also filed the counterclaim for -4- NC: 2024:KHC:3318 RFA No. 58 of 2024 Rs.1,85,00,000/- against defendant No.1 for the permanent structure put up by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4/Arbitrator passed an order dated 05.07.2016 by partly allowing arbitration case. Being aggrieved by the order of defendant No.4/Arbitrator passed in A.C.No.115/2015, defendant No.1 preferred an arbitration suit in A.S.No.164/2016 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said suit has been allowed vide judgment dated 21.01.2023 wherein the plaintiff has been directed to surrender the vacant possession of the lease hold premises to defendant No.1 within a period of three months and directed him to pay rent as agreed in the lease deed.
4. In the meantime, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S.No.2899/2023 seeking for the following releifs:
a. Permanent injunction against defendants' interference in the possession of the suit schedule property, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:3318 RFA No. 58 of 2024 b. Declaration that the award dated 5-7-2016 passed by defendant No.4 Sole Arbitrator is not binding on the plaintiff, c. Declaration that the judgment and decree dated 21-1-2023 passed by the court of XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in A.S.No.164/2016 is not binding on the plaintiff, d. Declaration that the registered lease deed dated 4-5-2009 entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is not binding on the plaintiff, e. To stay the operation of the award dated 5-7- 2016 in AC No.115/2015 passed by 4th defendant , f. To stay the operation of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.164/2016 and other consequential reliefs.
5. On service of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement and also filed I.A.No.VII under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and
(d) of CPC. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, has allowed I.A.No.VII filed by defendant No.1 and -6- NC: 2024:KHC:3318 RFA No. 58 of 2024 rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff has entered into lease deed dated 04.05.2009 with defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule industrial plot for 15 years commencing from 01.07.2009 on the monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. Before the completion of lease period, defendant No.1 approached the Arbitrator. The trial Court without considering this aspect of this matter, has erred in rejecting the plaint. He further contended that the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC only based on the averments in the plaint. Without referring to the averments in the written statement, the trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed by defendant No.1. The same is contrary to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SMT.SONUBAI -7- NC: 2024:KHC:3318 RFA No. 58 of 2024 BHIMARAY INGALE v. SMT.SUSHILA reported in AIR 2018 KAR 105.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has contended that plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration declaring order dated 05.07.2016 passed in A.C.No.115/2015 by the Sole Arbitrator and also declaring the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2023 passed in A.S.No.164/2016 by the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are not binding on the plaintiff. The order passed in A.S.No.164/2016 has not been challenged before the appropriate legal forum and therefore, the same has attained finality. Hence, the prayers sought by the plaintiff in the present suit are not maintainable. It is barred under Section 9 of CPC. The trial Court has rightly considered the application filed by defendant No.1 and based on the pleadings of the plaint, has rejected the plaint. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:3318 RFA No. 58 of 2024
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order.
9. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has entered into a lease deed dated 04.05.2009 with defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule industrial plot for 15 years commencing from 01.07.2009 on the monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. Further case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 has filed the arbitration case in A.C.No.115/2015 before defendant No.4/Arbritrator directing the plaintiff company to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also to pay a sum of Rs.12,10,104/- towards the arrears of rent with interest. The plaintiff also filed the counterclaim for Rs.1,85,00,000/- against defendant No.1 for the permanent structure put up by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4/Arbitrator passed an order dated 05.07.2016 by partly allowing the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 preferred an arbitration suit in A.S.No.164/2016 before the XVIII -9- NC: 2024:KHC:3318 RFA No. 58 of 2024 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said suit has been allowed vide judgment dated 21.01.2023 and directed the plaintiff to surrender the vacant possession of the lease hold premises within a period the three months and directed him to pay rent as agreed in the lease deed. Since the plaintiff has not challenged the order passed in the Arbitration proceedings in A.S.No.164/2016, the same has attained finality.
10. Defendant No.1 has filed the Execution Petition in Ex.No.1680/2023 and the same is pending consideration. In the meantime, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for above mentioned reliefs. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff is for declaration declaring that the award dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Arbitrator in A.C.No.115/2015 and judgment dated 21.01.2023 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru passed in A.S.No.164/2016, are not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not challenged the order passed in Arbitration proceedings before the appropriate legal forum and hence
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3318 RFA No. 58 of 2024 the said order has attained finality. Once the order passed in Arbitration proceedings has attained finality, the suit filed for declaration is not maintainable. The trial Court after considering the averments made in the plaint, has rightly held that the suit is barred under Section 9 of the CPC.
11. Viewed from any angle, this Court thinks that the trial Court has adopted right approach to the real state of affairs. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
13. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, all pending IAs do not survive and the same are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56