KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, C.M. POONACHA, JJ
MISS. RUKSHANA JAL NANJI – Appellant
Versus
SAMREEN AYUB – Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 100470 of 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against trial court order (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability of appeal (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
This appeal by the plaintiff in OS No.347/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed on IA No.3 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, [For short, ‘the Trial Court’], whereby the application in IA No.3 filed by the respondents/defendants under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , [For short, ‘the Act, 1996’] read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [For short, ‘CPC’], seeking reference of the dispute to Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Clause No.13 mentioned in the Indenture of partnership dated 30.08.2016 was allowed by the Trial Court.
2. The Registry has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the impugned order is neither a decree nor a deemed decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of CPC and consequently, the appeal is not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the impugned order arises out of an application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the impugned order tantamounts to rejection of plaint and consequently, such rejection amounts to a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of CPC and as such, the present appeal is maintainable.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants before the Trial Court submits that though the application is filed by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC along with Section 8 of the Act, 1996, the source of power for the Trial Court to allow the application is not traceable to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, but traceable to Section 8 of the Act, 1996, and consequently, the appeal would not be maintainable, and the appellant would necessarily have to file an appropriate Civil Revision Petition (CRP) instead of the present appeal.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and undisputed fact that the impugned order has been passed on an application in IA No.3 filed by the respondents/defendants under Section 8 of the Act, 1996, which has been invoked by the respondents/defendants, and the joint submissions made by both sides, we deem it just and appropriate to convert the present appeal into an appropriate Civil Revision Petition (CRP) by issuing directions in this regard.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby disposed off for statistical purpose by directing for conversion of the present Regular First Appeal into an appropriate Civil Revision Petition (CRP) under Section 115 of CPC.
(ii) Registry is directed to permit the appellant to carry out necessary corrections in the appeal papers for the purpose of conversion of the present appeal into an appropriate Civil Revision Petition (CRP)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.