A petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is not maintainable in an Arbitration O.P. filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as the latter already provides for interim measures.

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.361 of 2025

24^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Sri D. Mahendra Reddy and 2 others

…Appellants/Respondents/Respondents

and

Sri Taduru Narasimha Reddy and another

…Respondents/petitioners/petitioners

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel

representing Smt. D. Venkata Padmaja, learned counsel for the

appellants/respondents/respondents and Sri Kanakaiah Jalli,

learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Narendar Jalli, learned

counsel for respondents/petitioners/ petitioners. Perused the

record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under

Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC aggrieved by the order passed by the

learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Yadadri-

::2::

Bhonir District at Bhongir in I.A.No.230 of 2025 in Arb.O.P.No.2

of 2025, dated 03.09 2025.

3. The I.A.No.230 of 2025 is filed by the respondents

herein under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC

seeking temporary injunction to restrain the appellants from

alienating the petition schedule property by any mode pending

proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The

said petition has been allowed issuing ex-parte ad-interim

injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the petition

schedule property subject to compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 of

CPC. Aggrieved by said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is preferred.

4. The CMA is filed on the ground that the learned Trial

Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate petition under Order 39

Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in an Arbitration O.P filed under Section 9

of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Further, the urgency shown

to impress upon the Trial Court to pass ex parte order is

questioned when the application was filed on 26.04.2025 and

the impugned orders were passed on 03.09.2025. Further, it is

pleaded that after numbering of the O.P, an Interlocutory

::3::

Application could not have been filed under Order I Rule 10 of

CPC without notice to the proposed parties as also parties to the

petition. The dispute involved is running of the affairs of the

firm against the partners. The property which is subject matter

of the injunction granted is personal property of appellant No.1

over which charge is created by Axis Bank while availing loan by

the partnership firm. There is gross under valuation of the leave

sought as the property is worth more than Rs.4.00 Crores and

the dispute relates to a commercial transaction. The issue ought

to have been presented before a commercial court as the value

is more than Rs.1.00 Crore. Lastly, it is pleaded that ex-parte

injunction could not have been granted until further orders.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants relied

upon judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad in

the case of Gulf Oil Corporation Limited v. Singareni

Collieries Company Limited1, wherein, it is held as follows:

“11. ………… Therefore, the Court has ample power

to pass appropriate orders even like ad interim ex parte

and also after notice and hearing the respondent, as

the facts and circumstances warrant. Therefore, when

disputes arise between the parties and where there is a

1 2008 (3) ALT 631 (D.B.)

::4::

provision for settlement of disputes by arbitration

proceedings, the parties may have to approach for any

such relief and necessarily it has to be treated only as

an interim application and disposed of accordingly.

12. …….. it is brought to our notice that pending all

such applications filed under Section 9 of the Act.

seeking interim reliefs or measures or for any

directions, once again further interim applications are

being filed like the present one which is appealed

against in this appeal, seeking further or varied interim

reliefs by way of injunctions and directions which only

amounts to duplication of the very enquiry and adds to

the delays in disposal of main interim application and

repetition of the exercise. Such action is not only (not)

permissible and contemplated under the law but goes

far beyond the scope of provision and objects intended

u