IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20749 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

G RAJENDRA NAIDU SON OF (LATE) GOVINDA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT #4, 1^ST STREET, GALIVARI KANDIGI, AROKONAM, VELLORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 632 001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MOHAN DAS SON OF MARKONDA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT #1814/4, 13^TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR WEST, Digitally CHENNAI - 600 040.

signed by …RESPONDENT MADHURI S (BY SRI. RAGHU PRAKASH BABU D., ADVOCATE)

Location:

High Court of Karnataka THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7^TH OF JULY 2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2025 AND 2/2025 IN O.S.NO.1552 OF 2013 BY I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE H) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ALLOWING IA NO.1/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.2/2025 IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1552/2013 is directed against the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIII Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC was partly allowed by the Trial Court, which also allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendant also under Order XIII Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent-defendant for declaration, partition and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In addition to contesting the suit, the respondent-defendant also filed an application I.A.No.4 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the said Act of 1996”) r/w Order VII Rule 11 CPC to refer the matter to arbitration in terms of Clause No.7 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 20.11.2005 entered into between the petitioner and respondent. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the Trial Court proceeded to pass an order dated 14.02.2020 allowing the said application I.A.No.4 and consequently, dismissing the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff as not maintainable in law. The said order of the Trial Court was assailed before this Court in W.P.No.21162/2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 03.02.2025, which upheld the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court and issued certain directions in relation to the arbitral proceedings between the parties as hereunder:

“ i. The writ petition is disposed off.

ii. The arbitral proceedings initiated by the petitioner on 20.10.2010 in respect of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.11.2005 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent is not terminated although, the mandate of the arbitrator Sri. Sadasiva Reddy stood terminated.

iii. As a result the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is upheld.

iv. Since, the respondent has not disputed the arbitration clause contained in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.11.2005 and the arbitrability of the dispute, it is open for the petitioner to invoke Section 15 (2)

of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A. No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration.”

4. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that during the course of proceedings before the Trial Court, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P20. Subsequent to dis