COMMON ORDER:

Is this Court conferring jurisdiction by a process of judicial legislation or is this Court merely “ironing out the creases” and clarifying the law is the question before this Court?

The issue of jurisdiction of the Family Court-cum-7th Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, for entertaining the E.P.No.13 of 2016 in C.M.P.No.505 of 2012, as raised in C.R.P.No.2183 of 2022, is the core issue that is taken up at the outset with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

2) Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and Sri Challa Kodandaram Learned Senior Counsel, as instructed by Sri V. Srikantha Rao, learned counsel, appeared for the respondent. Both the learned counsel submitted arguments on the competency and jurisdiction of the Family Court-cum-7th Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, for passing orders in E.A.No.8 of 2022 in E.P.No.13 of 2016 in C.M.P.No.505 of 2012, dated 05.05.2022 due to the establishment of the Commercial Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3) Sri M.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a sole arbitrator was appointed to decide the disputes between the parties and he passed an Award, dated 13.10.2015, awarding certain amounts. The Award was challenged by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Pursuant to further litigation, the matter reached the Commercial Court, Bellary. The litigation with regard to the said Award is still pending. In the meanwhile E.P.No.13 of 2016 was filed by the Decree Holder before the Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu, for bringing to sale the properties belonging to the Judgment Debtor. The same was transferred on 27.08.2019 to the Family Court, Anantapuramu, where the matter is now pending. Orders have been passed bringing the property for sale. The present CRP is filed questioning the orders, dated

05.05.2022, in E.A.No.8 of 2022 in E.P.No.13 of 2016, by which the Court ordered the issuance of sale certificate to the Decree Holder.

4) The essential objection that is now raised before this Court is that after the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 came into force this Award can only be executed before the Commercial Court and that the regular District Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain this case. The value of the Award is Rs.32.86 crores along with interest etc. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Award has to be executed before the Commercial Court only and not before the Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu or the transferee Court, the Family Court-cum-7th Additional District & Sessions Court, Anantapuramu. Learned counsel Sri Radhakrishna points out that it is an undisputed fact that the Award was passed on 13.10.2015 and the Commercial Courts Act came into force on 23.10.2015. He points out that initially by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 10.06.2016, the Principal District and Sessions Courts in all the districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh were designated as Commercial Courts. But on 16.05.2019 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.78, two Special Commercial Courts were constituted in the cities of Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. As far as the disputes pertaining to Anantapuramu are concerned they are under the jurisdiction of Commercial Court, Vijayawada, as per this G.O. The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is that it is the Commercial Court, Vijayawada, alone that can entertain this Execution Petition and / or pass further orders.

5) The contention of the respondents on the other hand, as far as jurisdiction is concerned, is that the Commercial Courts do not have the power to execute an Arbitration Award. Learned senior counsel contends that the execution of an Award, even if the same relates to a dispute of commercial value and commercial industry, can only be before a regular Civil Court as per the pro