The court affirmed that review applications are maintainable when new evidence shows the specified value exceeds jurisdictional thresholds, confirming the Special Court's authority over commercial disputes.

ORDER :

(J. Sreenivas Rao, J.)

1. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3314, 3315 and 3553 of 2024 are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 13.02.2024 passed in E.A. No.29 of 2023 in C.E.P. No.10 of 2022, E.A. No.28 of 2023 in C.E.P. No.11 of 2022 and E.A. No.27 of 2023 in C.E.P. No.12 of 2022 respectively passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in allowing review applications.

1.1. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3316 and 3552 of 2024 are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 28.02.2024 passed in I.A. No.667 of 2023 in A.O.P. No.507 of 2022 and I.A. No.819 of 2023 in A.O.P. No.505 of 2022 respectively passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in allowing applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. Since all the civil revision petitions arise out of an award dated 23.05.2022 passed in Arbitration Application Nos. 133, 134 and 135 of 2019 by the learned Arbitrator, these matters have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

3. Heard Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Velagapudi Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Brief facts of the case:

4.1. The respondents filed Arbitration Application Nos. 133, 134 and 135 of 2019 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to, as 'the Act') seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising out of Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (for short, DAGPA') dated 04.03.2006 between the petitioner and respondents and the said applications were allowed by this Court by its common order dated 30.04.2020, appointing Justice Sri P.Swaroop Reddy, High Court Judge (Retd.) as sole Arbitrator. The respondents filed claim statement before the Arbitrator to declare that the DAGPAs dated 04.03.2006 entered by them in respect of their properties to an extent of 2,437 sq. yards, 2,540 sq. yards and 2,437 sq. yards in Sy.No.70 situated at Serilingampally Village, Ranga Reddy District, for construction of residential complex/independent houses/row houses etc., be terminated and invalid and to cancel the Deed and to hand over the original DAGPAs and also to direct the petitioner to execute the Deeds of Cancellation etc. The petitioner filed statement of defence denying the claim of the respondents. Learned Arbitrator after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties passed award, as prayed for, in the Arbitration Applications on 23.05.2022 holding that where time has to be held to be essence of contract; as the claimants/respondents cannot be made to indefinitely wait; when the contract became impossible to perform for want of roads; and on account of ambiguity in terms of Ex.A.1 document, there is possibility of the contract being void, the termination of the contract cannot be said to be illegal. The learned Arbitrator further held that the petitioner is entitled to return the advance amount paid to the respondents with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till the date of repayment.

4.2. Pursuant to the above said award, the respondents have filed execution petitions vide C.E.P. Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2022 invoking the provisions of Order)0(I(sic) Rule 34 of CPC., seeking execution of the cancellation of DAGPAs bearing document Nos. 4907, 4906 and 4904 of 2006, dated 04.03.2006 and direct the petitioner to execute the deeds of cancellation of DAGPAs on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. The said execution petitions were dismissed, by its order dated 16.08.2023, on the ground that the said Court is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said execution petitions. Thereafter, the respondents filed applications vide E.A. Nos.29, 28 and 27 of 2023 invoking the pr