The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be considered in the context of the need for speedy resolution of disputes and the limited discretion to condone delay in arbitration matters.

JUDGMENT :

P.NAVEEN RAO, J.

The appellants are the landlords and the respondent is the builder. A Development Agreement is entered into by the appellants and respondent on the land belonging to the appellants to construct villas and also to create infrastructure for the purpose of villas project. Differences arose between them leading to availing the arbitration clause and reference of dispute to the Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, the parties have come to an understanding and entered into a settlement to resolve the inter se disputes. Recording the same the Arbitrator passed Award on 16.06.2015. However, for the misfortune of both contesting parties, the issues are not resolved. The appellants herein filed application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Court of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, praying to grant an order of restraint from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners by the respondent. On detailed consideration of the matter, the trial Court passed an order of status-quo in respect of possession over the petition schedule mentioned property existing as on the date of filing of petition for a period of 90 days from the date of the order or till the filing of petition for enforcement of Ex.P.1 Award whichever is earlier.

2. The appellants herein filed E.P.No.615 of 2017 seeking enforcement of the Award, pending in the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy. The respondent filed E.P.No.819 of 2018 on 10.08.2018 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy seeking enforcement of the very same Award. The Court is informed that both the E.Ps, are pending consideration of the respective Courts.

3. That being so, this appeal is filed challenging the status-quo order passed by the court below in A.O.P.No.262 of 2017. As there is delay of 435 days in preferring this appeal, the appellants filed I.A.No.1 of 2018 praying to condone the delay.

4. We have heard Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.Das Mahapatra, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. With reference to the issue of delay, learned counsel for the appellants sought to contend that in fact there is no delay. After the status quo order was granted, the appellants were in possession and recently, the respondent was trying to disturb their possession. Since the Court ordered maintenance of status quo, unless the order of status-quo is clarified or modified, the interference continues compelling the appellants to file this appeal and therefore there is no delay. He would further submit that appellants are not trying to interject the process of arbitration proceedings. They are only seeking modification of the interlocutory order passed by the civil Court under Section 9 and in aid of enforcement of the Award. Therefore, the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer Vs Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 460, has no application and the appeal be considered on merits without regard to issue of delay. Unless the appeal is considered on merits, grave injustice would be caused to the appellants due to disturbance of possession held by them by the respondent, pending enforcement process before the competent Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that if the prayer sought by the appellants is granted, it will create more serious complications. Further there is no recognition of possession in favour of the appellants and by means of filing the application, they are trying to gain back possession, which is otherwise, vested in the respondent. If what is contended by the appellants is true that they are in possession and in violation of status-quo order, if the respondent is interfering