Sri B.Jayakumar, Son of Late B.Beerappa Vs. Dr. P.Nagendra, Son of Dr. P.Narayanappa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[a.n. venugopala gowda j.] this writ petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the order dated 24.11.2009, passed by the learned additional city civil judge, cch no.44, bangalore city in o.s.no.7403/2006 on i.a.no.iv, as per annexure - e and thereby to allow the application filed by the petitioner under order vii rule 11 read with section 151 of cpc and reject the plaint in o.s.no.7403/2006 as prayed for......court has rejected i.a.4. however, it has referred the dispute to the arbitrator as per ci.1.33 of joint development agreement dated 9.10.2005. said order has been questioned by the defendant by filing this writ petition.3. after the impugned order was passed, sri b.k.kanvi, retired district and sessions judge and arbitrator has issued notice to both the parties to appear before him to settle the dispute which has arisen on account of matters pertaining to the joint development agreement dated 9.10.2005 and general power of attorney dated 9.10.2005.4. sri sicidamallappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the writ petition may be disposed of taking into consideration the subsequent event i.e., the arbitrator having entered into reference for resolution of the dispute. learned counsel submits that, in view of the said subsequent event, there is no need for the respondent to prosecute the suit any further, since the parties will abide by the award that may be passed pursuant to the arbitration proceeding^ now pending before the aforesaid arbitrator.5. learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for disposing of the writ petition and directing the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Undisputedly, there is a Joint Development Agreement between the petitioner and respondent in respect of the property bearing CITB No. 261/B, in Ward No.50, Jayanagar, 2rd Block, Ashoka Pillar, and Bangalore. The said agreement was entered into on 9.10.2005 and has been registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 10.10.2005. The agreement provides for resolution of disputes, if any, by having recourse to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966.

2. Dispute having arisen, the respondent/plaintiff instituted O.S.7403/2006 against the petitioner/defendant. The defendant filed written statement and I.A.4 under 0.7 R.ll CPC to reject the plaint, on the ground that, the agreement provides for resolution of disputes by having recourse to arbitration. The Trial Court has rejected I.A.4. However, it has referred the dispute to the Arbitrator as per CI.1.33 of Joint Development Agreement dated 9.10.2005. Said order has been questioned by the defendant by filing this writ petition.

3. After the impugned order was passed, Sri B.K.Kanvi, retired District and Sessions Judge and Arbitrator has issued notice to both the parties to appear before him to settle the dispute which has arisen on account of matters pertaining to the Joint Development Agreement dated 9.10.2005 and general power of attorney dated 9.10.2005.

4. Sri Sicidamallappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the writ petition may be disposed of taking into consideration the subsequent event i.e., the arbitrator having entered into reference for resolution of the dispute. Learned counsel submits that, in view of the said subsequent event, there is no need for the respondent to prosecute the suit any further, since the parties will abide by the award that may be passed pursuant to the arbitration proceeding^ now pending before the aforesaid arbitrator.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for disposing of the writ petition and directing the Trial Court to close of the suit as having become unnecessary.

6. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the parties are directed to appear before Sri B.K.Kanvi, Arbitrator and have the dispute between them resolved.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The petitioner to ascertain from the Arbitrator the next date of sitting and appear before the Arbitrator. The respondent to ascertain the next sitting date of the Arbitrator and inform the petitioner of the date and venue of the sitting.