* THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO + C.R.P.Nos.1014 and 1184 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

% Dated 19.08.2025 # Between:

K.Bala Vishnu Raju Petitioner AND Emaar Hills Township Private Limited and Others Respondents ! Counsel for the appellant: Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel representing Sri Raghavan K. Thalapaka.

^ Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 3: Sri Rajvinder Ahluwalla, learned counsel representing Sri Shireen Sethna Baria.

< GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1. (2019) 4 ALT 13

2. 2025 Supreme (Online) (TEL) 8599

3. (2010) 8 SCC 329

4. 2019(2)ALD 671

5. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7342

6. (2021) SCC OnLine Del 3946

7. (2024) 4 SCC 1

8. (2025) 2 SCC 147 9. AIR 2022 Guj 132 10. AIR 2006 Ker 206

11. 2025 INSC 975 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO C.R.P.Nos.1014 and 1184 of 2024 Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel representing Sri Raghavan K. Thalapaka, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Sri Rajvinder Ahluwalla, learned counsel representing Sri Shireen Sethna Baria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 3 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Revision Petitions arise out of two orders - both dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Hyderabad, allowing I.A.Nos.324 and 130 of 2023 in C.O.P.No.89 of 2022. The two I.As were filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 for deletion of th eir names from the array of parties in the Commercial Original Petition (C.O.P) filed by the petitioner herein.

2. C.O.P.No.89 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner herein under section 9 (1)(ii)(a, b, c, d & e) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act), inter alia, for restraining the respondent No.2 from alienating or creating third-party interest in the schedule property pending arbitration and directing the respondent Nos.1 and 3 not to execute any sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed I.A.Nos.324 and 130 of 2023, respectively, under Order I Rule 10(2) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deletion of their names from the array of the parties in the C.O.P. The Commercial Court, by the impugned orders, allowed the said applications. The petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions aggrieved by the impugned orders.

3. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited (respondent No.3 in C.R.P.No.1014 of 2024 and respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.1184 of 2024) was the respondent No.2 in the C.O.P. and the applicant in I.A.No.130 of 2023.

4. Emaar India Limited (respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.1014 of 2024 and respondent No.3 in C.R.P.No.1184 of 2024) was the respondent No.3 in the C.O.P. and applicant in I.A.No.324 of 2023. 5. The Commercial Court found that neither Emaar Hills nor Emaar India were parties to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24.11.2008 which was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 (Ambati Murali Krishna) and hence, not bound by the said Arbitration Agreement. The Commercial Court accordingly allowed both applications ordering deletion of Emaar Hills and Emaar India from the array of parties in the C.O.P.No.89 of 2022.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 (Emaar Hills and Emaar India).

7. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 for substituted service on the respondent No.2 by way of paper publication since the respondent No.2 could not be served by courier/speed post. The said application was allowed by this Court on 09.04.2025. The proceeding sheet dated 28.04.2025 records that the petitioner took out paper publications in two newspapers on 15.04.2025. The respondent No.2 was however not represented despite substituted service. The respondent No.2 remained un-represented since then as recorded in the proceeding sheet dated 01.07.2025.

8. The facts leading to the filing of the C.O.P (section 9 petition)

are briefly stated.

9. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial In