Judgment :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Commercial Court, Cuttack, in Execution Petition No.177 of 2024, whereby the petitioner’s application to drop the execution proceedingson the ground of lack of jurisdiction was rejected.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner and the opposite party entered into a Master Service Agreement dated 27.01.2020 for the provision of security services to the petitioner’s premises. The agreement contained a dispute resolution clause under the heading “Settlement of Disputes, Governing Law and Jurisdiction,” which provided for arbitration and stipulated that the parties would submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Bhubaneswar.

(ii) In the course of performance, the opposite party committed several infractions and lapses in rendering the agreed services. Despite repeated communications from the petitioner, the lapses continued. Instead of rectifying them, the opposite party raised untenable claims and eventually withdrew its services.

(iii) Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice from the Commercial Court, Cuttack, in Execution Petition No.177 of 2024. Upon appearance through counsel on 23.10.2024, it was discovered that the execution petition sought enforcement of an ex parte arbitral award passed by a sole arbitrator appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(iv) It was later found that the petition under Section 11 (ARBP No.39 of 2022) had been filed without complying with the prerequisite of mutual settlement envisaged in the agreement and contrary to the agreed jurisdiction clause. The petitioner had not received any notice in the proceedings and, therefore, could not raise these objections before the Court.

(v) By order dated 16.09.2022, this Court appointed Mr. Sidharth Shankar Padhy, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator, with the place of arbitration fixed at the Arbitration Centre, High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Pursuant thereto, ARBP No.50 of 2022 was registered, and the learned arbitrator passed an ex parte award dated 05.02.2024 in favour of the opposite party, awarding the claimed amount with interest.

(vi) The record of the arbitral proceedings shows that notices sent to the petitioner by post and e-mail were returned unserved. The arbitrator thereafter directed substituted service through publication on 18.04.2023 in The Samaj (Keonjhar Edition) and The New Indian Express (Bhubaneswar Edition). The petitioner, who subscribes to neither newspaper, remained unaware of the proceedings and was thus prevented from appearing and contesting the case.

(vii) Upon learning of the award, the petitioner filed an application before the Commercial Court, Cuttack, in the execution proceedings seeking to drop the same for want of territorial jurisdiction, both under law and under the agreement. The opposite party filed objections contending that an arbitral award may be executed anywhere in the country.

(viii) After hearing both sides, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Commercial Court, Cuttack, by order dated 09.07.2025, rejected the petitioner’s plea, holding that since the arbitration was conducted at Cuttack and the services were rendered there, no part of the cause of action arose at Bhubaneswar. The Court thus concluded that Bhubaneswar Courts lacked jurisdiction, despite the parties’ agreement to the contrary.

(ix) Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

II. P