1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 01.03.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

C.R.P(MD)No.529 of 2020

and

C.M.P.(MD).Nos.3364, 3365 and 3539 of 2020

P.Raju

... Petitioner / Respondent

Vs.

Muthulakshmi

... Respondent / Petitioner

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to strike off Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020 on

the file of the Principal District Court, Theni, as lack of

jurisdiction.

For petitioner

: Mr.A.Sivaji

For respondent

: Mr.M.A.M.Raja

******

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner

praying to strike off the petition in Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020 on the

file of the Principal District Court, Theni, on the ground of lack

of jurisdiction.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner and the respondent entered into a partnership real estate

business in the name and style of “PRV Properties”, in the year 2012

and the partnership firm had purchased many properties for the

business and sold out some of the properties by converting into

plots. Stating that the petitioner has not given proper accounts,

the respondent herein had filed O.S.No.1 of 2016 on the file of the

District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, in which the petitioner had

filed an application in I.A.No.78 of 2016 for referring the matter

to the arbitration. But, the said I.A. was dismissed, against which

C.R.P.(MD).No.49 of 2017 was filed and this Court, by order dated

13.02.2017, allowed the said Civil Revision Petition with a

direction to the District Munsif, Periyakulam to consider the matter

afresh. Pursuant to the said order, the learned District Munsif

closed the suit with a direction to the parties to invoke the

arbitration clause. Thereafter, the respondent filed O.P.No.348 of

2019 on the file of this Court at Principal Seat (Original side

jurisdiction), under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)

praying to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. A learned

Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 12.06.2019, appointed a

retired Principal District Judge as Arbitrator holding that the

proceedings may be conducted under the aegis of the Madras High

Court Arbitration Centre and in accordance with the Madras High

Court Arbitration Rules. In the meantime, the respondent had filed

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

O.S.No.21 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge,

Theni, for declaration of dissolution of partnership deed and for

seeking half of the share in the properties and it is still pending.

3. He would further submit that the Arbitrator has taken the

application on file as Claim Petition No.145 of 2019 and after

hearing both sides, on 20.03.2020 the Arbitrator closed the claim

petition on the ground that the arbitration proceeding is barred by

limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a

petition in Ar.O.P.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Theni. Questioning the maintainability of the said

Ar.O.P., the petitioner has presented an application on the file of

the Principal District Court, Theni, but, it was returned by the

Court below without assigning any reason. Hence, the petitioner has

come up with this civil revision petition for the aforesaid prayer.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would next submit

that since the Arbitrator was appointed by the Principal Bench of

this Court (original side jurisdiction) on the O.P. filed by the

respondent herein, no other Court has jurisdiction to entertain the

O.P. under Section 42 of the Act. As the respondent is bound by the

order in O.P.No.348 of 2019 and the Arbitration only conducted at

Chennai as the venue of arbitration, the respondent cannot legally

approach any other Court and seek for