IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-322-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 14.01.2026 PREM KAUR ALIAS PARAMJEET KAUR ....Petitioner(s)

Versus MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rubal Garg, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate, Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate, Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, whereby the application dated Nil (Annexure P-3) filed by respondent No.1/defendant under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for referring the parties to resolve the matter through arbitration in terms of Clause 7.9 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) has been allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner has been ordered to be returned to be filed before the Arbitrator and the matter has been referred for arbitration, as per MoU/Agreement dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) between the parties.

2. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner with Mr. Tara Dutt, learned counsel submitted that there was an agreement in the nature of Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and the respondents vide Annexure P-2 dated 06.04.2018 with regard to sale of a property. The agreement was undoubtedly signed by all the parties regarding which there is no dispute. He submitted that the agreement contains an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 7.9, which provides for arbitration process. He submitted that the sale deed was registered in the year 2018 but the respondents failed to comply with their obligations pertaining to cooperating in obtaining CLU and an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with the respondents, which was required to be refunded but since they did not refund the same, the petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery against the respondents and the plaint has been attached with the present petition as Annexure P-1.

3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that after filing of the aforesaid civil suit for recovery by the petitioner against the respondents, they filed an application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Act for return of the plaint in view of the aforesaid arbitration clause. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide impugned order dated 17.09.2025 allowed the aforesaid application in view of the aforesaid arbitration clause in the aforesaid agreement and ordered return of the plaint to the petitioner to be filed before the Arbitrator, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and the aforesaid order has been challenged before this Court in the present civil revision.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the aforesaid agreement, which was in the nature of Memorandum of Understanding, the validity of the aforesaid agreement had expired after the execution of the sale deed and therefore, no such arbitration clause could have been invoked thereafter and has also referred to Clause 6.1 of the agreement, which pertains to the validity of the MoU and provides that the MoU shall be valid from the date of execution until the long stop date, unless terminated earlier by the parties by mutual consent through a written communication. He submitted that no long stop date was fixed by the parties and since the aforesaid amount was lying with the respondents which was required to be refunded by the respondents to the petitioner, the civil suit was filed by the petitioner regarding which the arbitration clause could not have been invoked.

5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

6. The aforesaid arbitration clause at p