Procedural irregularity occurs when a trial court fails to address an interlocutory application before the main petition, necessitating a remand for proper hearing.

1. In this petition, the petitioner, who is respondent No.2 in AP No.49/2022 is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-2) insofar as it relates to directing orders to be passed on I.A.IV filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC along with main petition.

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was posted before the trial Court on 05.04.2024, on which date, the petitioner filed an application I.A.IV under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the said petition filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 on the ground that the case involves a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015. It was contended that since the case involved was a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the said Act, 2015, the said petition in AP No.49/2022 was not maintainable before the trial Court and the same was liable to be either rejected or transferred to the designated Commercial Court.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the event I.A.IV was to be allowed by the trial Court, the trial Court may be directed to transfer AP No.78/2022 also to the designated Commercial Court.

5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1, who was petitioner in the said AP No.49/2022 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 herein, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 in AP No.49/2022 opposed the said submission and pointed out that even according to the petitioner herein himself, the dispute was not a commercial dispute in the light of AP No.78/2022 filed by the petitioner himself. In this context, my attention was invited to the specific and categorical submission/statement made in the said AP No.78/2022 filed by the petitioner, in particular paragraph No.63 wherein the petitioner has stated that the dispute arising out of the arbitral award was not a commercial dispute and since both AP No.78/2022 filed by the petitioner herein and AP No.49/2022 filed by respondent No.1 herein arise out of the very same arbitral award, the petitioner was estopped from contending that the dispute was not a commercial dispute and this contention was liable to be rejected by the doctrine of erection and acquiescence.

6. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submitted that so long as the trial Court directed passing of orders on I.A.IV without expressing any opinion on its merits/demerits, the trial Court was fully justified in directing orders to be passed on I.A.IV along with main petition and that there is no merit in the present petition which is liable to be dismissed.

7. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner having filed I.A.IV on 05.04.2024, though arguments on merits had already been completed prior to that day itself by both sides, since the fresh/new application I.A.IV had been filed by the petitioner on that day, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to first decide I.A.IV and thereafter proceed to pass orders on main petition and failure to do so would vitiate the impugned order insofar as it relates to directing orders to be passed on I.A.IV along with main petition.

8. On this short ground of patent procedural irregularity/illegality, committed by the trial court, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 and direct the trial Court to prepone the matter and hear all the parties on I.A.IV and pass appropriate orders on the said application in the first instance and thereafter proceed further to dispose of the main petition in accordance with law.

9. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 05.04.2024 passed in AP No.49/2