REVIEW PETITION 287 of 2024 on 31 December 2024

1. Sri. Putta Venkata Subbaiah, S/o. Late P. Subbaiah, Aged about. 54 [years.]Occ. Business, R/o. Villa No. 28. Fortune lndra Village, Serilingampally,Guttala Begumpet Village, Madhapqr, K.V. Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad,Telangana.Occ. Business, R/o. Villa No. 28. Fortune lndra Village, Serilingampally,Guttala Begumpet Village, Madhapqr, K.V. Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad,Telangana.

2. Mrs. Putta Lakshmi Devi, Wo. Putta Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 48 [years,]Occ. Business, R/o. Villa No. 28. Fortune lndra Village, Serilingampally,.Guttala Begumpet Village, Madhapur, K.V. Ranga Reddy, [Hyderabad,]Telangana.Occ. Business, R/o. Villa No. 28. Fortune lndra Village, Serilingampally,.Guttala Begumpet Village, Madhapur, K.V. Ranga Reddy, [Hyderabad,]Telangana.

3. Mrs. P. Krishnaveni, Wo. Jangamltihas, Aged about 30 [years, ]Occ. [Business,]Rlo. 16-2-7 42lE/5, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Near TV Tower, Ameerpet,Hyderabad, Telangana.Rlo. 16-2-7 42lE/5, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Near TV Tower, Ameerpet,Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. Mrs. Putta Vara Lakshmi, Wo. Putta Prasad, Aged about 50 [years, ][Occ.]Business, R/o. Villa No. 27'l , Urjith Osmania Nagar, Tellapur, Sangareddy [-]502032Business, R/o. Villa No. 27'l , Urjith Osmania Nagar, Tellapur, Sangareddy [-]502032

5. Mr. Putta Prajwal, S/o. Putta Prasad, Aged about 24 [years, ]Occ: BusinessR/o. Villa No.271, Urjith Osmania Nagar, Tellapur, Sangareddy [- ]502032... RPspondents/ ApplicantsR/o. Villa No.271, Urjith Osmania Nagar, Tellapur, Sangareddy [- ]502032... RPspondents/ Applicants lnterlocutory Application under Sectfon 114 Read with Order [XLVII Rule ][1]of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][in ][support of]the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]to recall/review the [order ][dated]3111212024 in AA No. 287 of 2024 and so [as ]to decide [the ][case ][on ][merits.]

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOTLA VENKATESWARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI AKHILESH CHUNNAM

The Court made the following ORDER:

_..-"1;"1*ry.ffi-y,:.- ,/

HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEh{ REDDY

Review I.A. No.2 of 2025

1nARBITRATION APPLICATION No.287 OF 2024

ORDER: [(ORAL)]

This application is filed by the petitioner/respondent seeking to reviedrecall the order dated, 31.12.2024 passed b.r this Court inArbitration Application No.287 of 2024 filed by the respondents/applicantsArbitration Application No.287 of 2024 filed by the respondents/applicants

2. Mr. Botla Venkateshwara Rao, leamed counse for the reviewpetitioner, submitted that the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by thisCourt in Arb. Appl. No.287 of 2024 needs to be revieqed as there is anerror apparent on the face of the record. It is sutrmitted that therespondents/applicants have suppressed material facts. There is noservice of notice on the review petitioner in the arbitra:ion application.The relief seeking to appoint an arbitrator is contrary to the terms of theregistered lease deed dated 02.0r.2023 more particurarly crause 12therein. The arbitration application is not maintainahle also for thereason the respondents have suppressed the order dated 26.02.2024passed by the leamed XXI Junior Civil Judge, Ciry Civil Court,Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court,) in I.A. No.365 of 2023 in

O.S. No.4078 of 2023 filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act 1996 (for short 'Act'). Leamed counsel submitted thatin view of the serious inconsistencies in the case of the respondents/Conciliation Act 1996 (for short 'Act'). Leamed counsel submitted thatin view of the serious inconsistencies in the case of the respondents/applicants and suppression of facts indulged by them, the order dated31.12.2024 may be recalled and the mattsr may be heard on merits.31.12.2024 may be recalled and the mattsr may be heard on merits.

3. Mr. Akhilesh Chunnam, learned cotmsel for the respondents/applicants, submitted that there was no suppression of materialfacts/Court orders. That even alter $ervice of notice, the reviewpetitioner did not choose to contest the arbitration application.This Court has not passed the order dated 31.12.2024 on merits.The order was passed as there was no corltest from the review petitioner.The order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.366 of2023 in O.S. No.4078 of 2023 does not operate as res judicata as thedismissal of the said application was on fhe ground of non-existence ofarbitral agreement between the parties to the suit but it was not on theground of the disputes between the landlord and tenant (the partiesherein); the dispute therein was regarding the common area maintenancecharges and water charges by respondents No.2 and 3 and defendantsNo.6 and 7 in the suit who are not parties;to the lease agreement.

. i::

4. Heard leamed counsel for the review petitioner and leamedcounsel for the respondents/applicants.

5. The order dated 3|.I2.2OZ4 was passed by this Court allowingArb. Appl. No.287 of 2024 as there was no contest from the reviewpetitioner. Leamed counsei for the respondents placed on record a copyof the personal notice dated 25.11.2024 sent to the review petitioner,original postal receipt and consignment track report. fhe consignmenttrack report shows that the notice sent by the respondents to the reviewpetitioner through registered post on 2S.ll.ZO24 was delivered on26.11.2024. However, the petitioner chose not to appear before thisCourt. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the reviewpetitioner that notice was not served on the review petitioner is contraryto the record and hence rejected.

6. In so far as the other contentions raised by the leamed counsel forthe review petitioner regarding the respondents supprt:ssing the replynotice to the arbitration notice 31.07.2024, it needs to b: noted that thisCourt has not passed the order on merits. The order dated,3l.l2.2O24has been passed noting the contentions of the respondents. According tothe learned counsel for the respondents, the review petitioner has sentexplanation through e-mail dated 15.10.2024 agreeing fbr referring the

arbitral dispute to Intemational Arbitration and Mediation Centre(IAMC), Hyderabad. The only objection raised by the review petitioneris that the matter has to be referred to institutional arbitration centre.The letter dated 07. 10.2024 and the e-mail dated 15.10.2024 were issuedto the respondents by the review petitioner requesting them to attend themeeting at IAMC stating that IAMC is a specialized agency forappointment of a sole arbitrator. It is thus, submitted by the leamedcounsel for the respondents/applicants that the respondents have noobjection for relerring the matter to an arbitrator.

7. On perusal of the letter dated 07.10.2024 issued by the reviewpetitioner, it is clear that in response to the letter dated 26.09.2024 of therespondents/applicants, the review petitioner informed the respondentsthat a meeting hall was reserved at IAMC which is consideredas a specialized agency that can guide the parties in the appointmentof an arbitrator for resolution of disputes, if any, between them.Thus, the objection taken by the leamed counsel for the revlewpetitioner that arbitration clause is not properly invoked cannot beaccepted. The review petitioner having agreed for arbitration cannotresile from the same.

L*

8. It is fuith er contented by the learned counsel for the reviewpetitioner that the request made by the respondents fc,r appointment ofan arbitrator is contrary to the Clause 12 of the lease agreement.However, on reading of the clause, it is clear that in case of the partiesnot agreeing for appointment of a sole arbitrator, each party cannominate an arbitrator of their choice who in turn, ca.r appoint a thirdarbitrator. As there was no response to the arbitration notice dated31.07.2024, the respondents have proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator.Thus, the contention of the leamed counsel for the revie w petitioner thatthere is no valid appointment of an arbitrator is without any merit.9. In so far as the suppression of facts regarding non-disclosure ofthe order dated 2(t.02.2024 passed by the trial Court ir I.A. No.366 of2023 in O.S. No.4078 of 2023 is concemed, it needs to lte noted that thesuit is filed by the review petitioner against the respondents and others.In fact, the application under Section 8 of the Act $.as filed by therespondents stating that there is arbitration clause i.e. Clause 12 in theregistered lease deed. Such contention was rejected by the trial court bynoting at paragraph Nos.l7 and 18 that there is no tenant and landlorddispute between the parties but the dispute is with regard to the commonarea maintenance charges and water charges, moreover, clefendants No.6

and. 7 are not the authorized agonts defendants No.l to 5(the respondents) and they are not partles to the lease deed, as such,the arbitration clause in the lease deed is not binding on them. The trial(the respondents) and they are not partles to the lease deed, as such,the arbitration clause in the lease deed is not binding on them. The trialCourt further held that bifurcation of the subject matter and appointmentof arbitrator is not maintainable and eventually dismissed the applicationin I.A. No.366 of 2023.of arbitrator is not maintainable and eventually dismissed the applicationin I.A. No.366 of 2023.

10. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted thatreasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the review petitionerby the leamed Arbitrator and the dates of hearing are also not properlyintimated to the review petitioner. In ttle opinion of this Court, suchissues cannot be decided in this applicatiop.

11. In the light of the above discussion, this review application isdismissed. However, as it is stated that claim,/statement defence was notfiled by the review petitioner due to the pendency of the reviewapplication, liberty is granted to the revipw petitioner for filing claimstatement within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. The review petitioner is also ar liberty to fileapplication for framing preliminary issue with regard to themaintainability of arbitral proceedings. If such application is filed, thearbitrator is requested to decide the samp at the first instance before (

e:jf:*a

:.r1-9.

\

7

eirti:ring upon adjudication oT the main'#tiitral disput,:s. Th6id'ihdll beno order as to costsno order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, ifany, pending in this application srand closed.

SrI/- K. SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR--7IIICTION OFFICERJ

//TRUE COPYII

To1.The XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad2.Sri Satish Nimmagadda, The Executive Director, ICONMA ProfessionalServices and Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Having its registered office at.312-3't5,3rdFloor, Tower 2, Fortune 9 Building, Somajiguda, Raj Bhavan Road,Hyderabad-500082, Telangana.1.The XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad2.Sri Satish Nimmagadda, The Executive Director, ICONMA ProfessionalServices and Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Having its registered office at.312-3't5,3rdFloor, Tower 2, Fortune 9 Building, Somajiguda, Raj Bhavan Road,Hyderabad-500082, Telangana.

One CC to SRl. AKHILESH CHUNNAM, Advocate [OPUC][OPUC]

4One CC to SRl. BOTLA VENKATESWARA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl(Two CD Copies(Two CD Copies M- k-ul/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/08/2025

ORDER

Review l.A. NO .2 ol Z02SINARB.APPL.No.287 ot 2O24

DISMISSING TI{E REVTEW I.A. NO. 2 OF 2025

1xLqb

;\()Ir,r3 2s6a',:a Ii!t.- .: t;,i,: r-ii\\