Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

REVIEW PETITION No.149 of 2025

(In the matter of a petition under Section 114 read with Rules 1 and

2 of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908).

M/s Hotel Sea Point Pvt. Ltd., …. Petitioner (s)

Bhubaneswar

-versus-

M/s Blueline Resorts Pvt. Ltd., …. Opposite Party (s)

Bhubaneswar

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Surendra Routray, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Avijit Pal. Adv.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-18.11.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Review Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this

Court to recall that portion of the order dated 11.04.2025 permitting continuation of arbitration after stamping, and to hold that the disputes be adjudicated exclusively in Civil Suit No. 462/2017 before

the competent civil court.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 (i) Two parallel civil suits between the same parties were instituted before the Puri Civil Court concerning disputes under a lease dated 01.05.2012: Civil Suit No. 598/2015 filed by the Opposite Party on 11.09.2015, and Civil Suit No. 462/2017 filed by the Review Petitioner on 21.06.2017. In C.S. 598/2015 the Review Petitioner filed a written statement on 20.09.2017, issues were framed, and the court directed evidence by affidavit, demonstrating active submission to the civil court’s jurisdiction by both sides.

(ii) The lease agreement forming the foundation of the dispute is unstamped and unregistered; this defect was noticed judicially. The High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7893/2017 on 08.05.2017 directed impounding, and the Opposite Party itself pleaded in paras 32 and 40 of C.S. 598/2015 that arbitration was not maintainable for want of stamping and registration. Clause 19 allegedly put the stamp burden on the Opposite Party, which remained unpaid for years.

(iii) While arbitration machinery had earlier been set in motion, the Review Petitioner by letter dated 28.07.2017 expressly informed the learned Arbitrator that both parties had waived arbitration since they had filed and were pursuing their respective civil suits. In parallel, this High Court, by orders dated 03.11.2017 and 09.04.2021 in ARBP- 39/2013, refused to extend arbitral time and directed parties to act strictly in accordance with law, which the Review Petitioner says reinforced continuation before the civil court.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39

(iv) The Opposite Party filed a Section 8 application on 20.11.2017 in C.S.

462/2017 seeking reference to arbitration even as its own earlier suit C.S. 598/2015 was pending; the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri rejected that Section 8 application on 17.05.2018. No Section 37 challenge was filed and, according to the Review Petitioner, that rejection attained finality, affirming the civil court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter.

(v) Subsequently, the Opposite Party withdrew its own suit C.S. 598/2015 on 05.12.2019 under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC after the Review Petitioner had already filed written statement and the court had framed issues. Meanwhile, C.S. 462/2017 continues; on 06.05.2025 the Opposite Party orally sought impounding of the lease deed and the Review Petitioner consented, with an impounding application filed. The Opposite Party also pursued CRP No. 23/2023 and CRP No. 35/2023 arising from orders within C.S. 462/2017, which were dismissed by this High Court on 03.04.2023 and 03.04.2025 respectively.

(vi) In W.P.(C) No. 32426/2022, by order dated 11.04.2025, this High Court quashed the Arbitrator’s order dated 01.08.2022 on the ground that it was founded on an unstamped and unregistered lease, but simultaneously allowed continuation of arbitration upon payment of stamp duty and penalty as assessed by the Collector under Section