Disposed

C.Suryaprakash v. a.Karunasree

Telangana HC20 Apr 2011CRP/4372/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a C.R.P. challenging a lower court's direction to file a written statement. The court declined to interfere with the impugned order's merits due to a pending Section 8 application but directed the filing of the written statement within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file written statement within six weeks; lower court to dispose of pending Section 8 application.

C.Suryaprakash Vs a.Karunasree — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

C.R.P. No. 4372 of 2009

¶3

O r d e r:

¶4

This C.R.P. is directed against the docket order dated 20.08.2009, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No.2749 of 2007 in O.S. No. 390 of 2006, filed by the petitioner praying to set aside the ex parte order dated 27.09.2007.

¶5

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the application of petitioner in I.A. No. 39 of 2007 filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was pending, the Court below ought not to have set the petitioner ex parte on 27.09.2007, and it further committed an error in passed the order under revision, directing the petitioner to file written statement while the said application is pending, while setting aside the ex parte order.

¶6

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even before the respondents filing counter, the petitioner seek that his application in I.A. No. 39 of 2007 filed for referring the matter to Arbitrator should be allowed, and that the petitioner only with a view to drag on the proceedings, filed the present C.R.P.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order under revision. The petitioner states that if as directed by the Court below, he is required to file written statement, then it would amount to compelling him to disclose his defence, even before his application in I.A. No. 39 of 2007, filed for referring the matter to Arbitrator, is disposed of, and therefore, he contends that the Court below, committed an error in directing him to file written statement while setting aside the ex parte order. The petitioner further states that even though this Court, by order dated 15.09.2009, while ordering notice before admission, directed the Court below to take up I.A. No. 39 of 2007, without insisting the petitioner to file written statement, till date the same has not been disposed of. He further states that since by virtue of the orders passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 906 of 2007, he is restrained from alienating the properties, the interest of the

¶8

respondents stand protected.

¶9

Whatever be the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents, since this Court has already by order dated 15.09.2009 directed the Court below to take up I.A. No. 39 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for referring the matter to Arbitrator, without insisting the petitioner to file writ petition, and considering the nature of order impugned, I am not inclined to go into its merits, and interfere with it. However, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the C.R.P. with the following directions:

¶10

The petitioner, as directed by the Court below, shall file his written statement within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court below is directed to consider and dispose of the application in I.A. No. 39 of 2008 filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, if not already dispose of.

¶11

Accordingly, the C.R.P. is disposed of. No costs.

¶12

________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶13

Dated: 20^th October, 2010. KSR

C.Suryaprakash v. a.Karunasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Suryaprakash v. a.Karunasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Talari Sudarshanam, Vs The District Collector

B.Varun Reddy, Vs P. Chandrawekhar Reddy

S. Vinood Kumar (died), Vs M/s. Sai Sunrat Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Khaleel-Ullah-Shareef Vs Pitla Ravinder

Desu Veeraiah Sons Vs Sri Sunil Sarma

Kommu Andalu Vs Kommu Yadaiah