CHAT AROMA Vs. HAMIR REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside order dtd. 27/1/2022 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide which the order dtd. 18/10/2021 (Annexure P-10) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali, has been set aside and the appeal under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (in short, 'the Arbitration Act') filed by the respondent has been allowed; with a further prayer to dismiss the application filed under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act filed by the respondent; along with certain other prayers.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents, the defendants in the suit for injunction against dispossession, had made the statement before the trial court that they will not dispossess the petitioner except in accordance with law. This was the main prayer in the plaint. Therefore, the respondents had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court qua the subject matter in almost its entirety. Had the court not adjourned the matter on the said date, the main suit itself would have been disposed off on the basis of the above statement. It was only in the discretion of the trial court that the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for disposal despite the above said statement of the respondents. However, after going before the Lok Adalat the respondents took a stand which ruled out any compromise between the parties. Hence, the matter was referred back to the trial court. After the suit had come to the trial court the counsel for the respondents had again sought time to file written statement. Accordingly the case was adjourned by the court. It is only on such adjourned date that the application under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the respondents. In view of this factual situation, the application filed by the respondents becomes the one filed later than the first statement made by the respondents qua the subject matter, whereas, the Act prescribes that such application should have been made not later than such date of making first statement qua the substance of the suit. The counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Homes Finance Limited & ors. (2011) 5 SCC 322, particularly para 25 thereof, which reads as under:

(3.) Accordingly, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the first statement on the substance had come from the respondents wherein they had expressed their intention not to dispossess the petitioner, except in accordance with law, therefore, any subsequent application, moved under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act, would not be sufficient to take away the jurisdiction of the civil court.