CMA/971/2012 of K. SREENIVASULU Vs M/S. SRIRAM FINANCE CO. LTD., & ANOTHER on 1 September 2026

1. K. SREENIVASULU, S/o Narayana Business R/o Pathapeta, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND

1. M/S SRIRAM FINANCE CO LTD ANOTHER, Chennai, Rep. by its General Power of Attorney Holder i.e, Branch Manager, Visakhapatnam

2. S Ramananda Babu, S/o Polisetty, Hindu, Business R/o D.No. 3/37, Yendada, Visakhapatnam District (2nd Respondent not necessary in this petition) ...Respondents Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set aside the Order dt. 20- 12-2011 in the OP No. 663 of 2010 before District Judge, Anantapur filed by the Appellant Against Arbitration Application No. 4/2010 passed by the Sole Arbitrartor, Visakhapatnam and consequently direct the court below and take on file and proceed with thematter and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 1699 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to resutmit condone the delay of 116 days file the CMASR No. 8926 of 2012 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CMAMP 1816 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Arbitration Application No. 4/2010 on the file of the Sole Arbitrator Justice B.V. Ranga Raju,. Advocate Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above appeal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM The Court made the following order:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND &

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-M/s.Sriram Finance Company Limited.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellant filed O.P before the District Court, Ananthapur under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the Award, dated 30.04.2012, passed by the Arbitrator. The appellant is the borrower and the respondent No.1 is the Finance Company.

3. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge, by order, dated 20.12.2011, returned the O.P. filed in C.F.R.No.7284, dated 09.11.2010, to the petitioner for presentation before the appropriate Court as per law.

4. While returning the O.P., the learned District Judge also observed that it is obvious that the petition is filed before the Court on the ground that the petitioner is resident of Ananthapur District. But, evidently respondent No.2 is resident of Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable before the District Court, Ananthapur.

5. During the course of hearing of this case today, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the order of the District Judge, Ananthapur passed in O.P.No.663 of 2010, dated 20.12.2011, is in accordance with the settled law and he sought permission to approach the appropriate Court at Visakhapatnam.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 also submits that he can approach the appropriate Court of law, if he is so advised.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, in our considered view, without going into merits of this case, this appeal can be disposed of, by permitting the appellant, to approach the appropriate Court of law to ventilate his grievances, to meet the interest of justice.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate Court of law.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

_______________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Dated: 02.09.2026 PKR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND &

Dated: 02.09.2026 PKR