Reserved on : 16.09.2025 Pronounced on : 31.10.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.21547 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)

BETWEEN:

MR.MANEL VAMAN NAYAK S/O M.VITTAL NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/18/703, VITTAL NAYAK COMPOUND MATADAKANI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MANGALURU – 575 003 DAKSHINA KANNADA.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI D.VIJAYA CHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1 . MR.MANEL VENKATRAYA NAYAK by RAKESH S S/O M. VITTAL NAYAK, HARIHAR Location: High AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, Court of Karnataka, R/AT FLAT NO. 002 Dharwad Bench, Dharwad CLASSIC MANOR APARTMENTS ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, MANGALURU – 575 003.

DAKSHINA KANNADA.

2 . MR. MANEL PURUSHOTHAM NAYAK, S/O M. VITTAL NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT GANDHINAGAR, MANGALURU – 575 003.

DAKSHINA KANNADA.

3 . SMT. VASANTHA BALIGA, W/O MADHAVA BALIGA, CLOTH MERCHANT, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/AT BANTWAL DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

4 . SMT. POORNIMA PAI, W/O DR. KASHINATH PAI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT GANGOLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O.SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

SRI M.SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN I.A.NO.1/25)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN EX.P.NO.31/2017 DATED 28.11.2024 AN APPLICATION/OBJECTION FILED U/S.47 R/W. S.151 OF CPC BY THE LEARNED 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, D.K. MANGALURU PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANENXURE -

A.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.1 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 28-11-2024 passed by the concerned Court in Execution Case 31 of 2017.

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

2.1. The 1^st respondent/Decree Holder, initiated arbitration proceedings on a dispute that arose between the parties in A.P. 5 of 2001 against the petitioner and other respondents before the sole arbitrator, a retired District and Sessions Judge in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitrator rendered his award on 28-12-2004. The arbitral award dated 28-12-2004 resulted in a direction to auction the properties of the dissolved partnership firm. The award so passed by the arbitrator comes to be confirmed by the concerned Court by its judgment and decree dated 11-03-2010. The Judgment Debtor, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 11-03-2010, preferred a Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court in MFA No. 4816 of 2010. The MFA also comes to be dismissed, thereby affirming the award passed by the Arbitrator on 28-12-2004.

2.2. Subsequent to the dismissal of the MFA in MFA No. 4816 of 2010, the 1^st respondent/Decree Holder files Execution Petition in Execution Petition 31 of 2017 seeking execution of the arbitral award. In the said Execution Petition, the petitioner files an application under Section 47 r/w 151 of the CPC challenging the maintainability of the Execution Petition. The concerned Court, in terms of the order impugned, rejects the said contention of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.1, against which the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri D Vijaya Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri O Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri M Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel appearing for impleading applicant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not applicable to the arbitral proceedings which commenced under the old Act i.e., the old Arbitration Act, 1940. The judgment relied on by the trial Court in ILR 2003 KAR 4343 was misplaced. The o