C.R. No. 3260 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3260 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 3, 2011 Proma Industries Limited …..Petitioner Vs. Girnar Fibres Limited and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Tejinder Singh, Advocate for Mr.Manish Jain, Advocate for IFCI. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff- respondent No.1-Girnar Fibres Limited has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1/ respondent No.2 IFCI Ltd. to assign debt of plaintiff- respondent No.1 to defendant No.2- petitioner or any other entity claiming that the same stands settled in view of C.R. No. 3260 of 2011 (O&M) [2] one time settlement accepted by plaintiff- respondent No.1. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim order has been filed. The petitioner- defendant No.2 has filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short ‘the Act’) for referring the matter to the Civil Court for the grounds mentioned in the application. The trial Court vide order dated May 9, 2011 seems to have taken the cognizance of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by plaintiff- respondent No.1 to pass an order of status quo while requiring defendant No.2- petitioner to file reply/ written statement. Defendant No.2- petitioner has approached this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated May 9, 2011 granting status quo without application of mind in application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC during the pendency of an application under Section 8 of the Act filed by defendant No.2- petitioner. The grievance of defendant No.2- petitioner is that in view of application under Section 8 of the Act having already been filed and non- speaking order of status quo having been passed, a serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, as legally, the petitioner cannot either file written statement or contest the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The said contention and grievance has been controverted by counsel for plaintiff- respondent No.1. Both the counsel for defendant No.2- petitioner as well as counsel for plaintiff-respondent No.1 have argued the matter touching the C.R. No. 3260 of 2011 (O&M) [3] merits of the suit. Since an application under Section 8 of the Act filed by the petitioner is pending before the trial Court and has been adjourned for July 19, 2011, it will not be appropriate to express any opinion regarding the maintainability of the present revision petition in view of provisions of Order 43, the impugned Order being prima facie an appealable order; the maintainability of the suit in view of the alleged arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.2- petitioner; the effect and scope of the application under Section 8 of the Act pending before the trial Court or the authority of the trial Court to adjudicate upon the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC during the pendency of a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this Court is of the opinion that adjudication of application under Section 8 of the Act filed by the petitioner on the basis of an arbitration agreement alleged to be existing between defendant No.2- petitioner and plaintiff- respondent No.1, has to be decided expeditiously, as an interim order passed in favour of plaintiff- respondent No.1 is operating against the rights of defendant No.2- petitioner. It is not out of place to observe here that vide order dated May 17, 2011, it had been observed in the interim order passed by this Court that pendency of this revision petition will not, in any manner, hamper the expeditious adjudication of the application under Section 8 of the Act filed by the petitioner before the trial Court. The said observation was again reiterated in order dated May 23, 2011. It was specifically observed in order dated May 23, 2011 that it would be appreciated in case the application under Section 8 of the Act is finally adjudicated upon by the C.R. No. 3260 of 2011 (O&M) [4] trial Court. Despite the abovesaid observations which seem to have been communicated to the trial Court, the trial Court has opted to adjourn the application under Section 8 of the Act filed by the petitioner and the interim injunction application filed alongwith the suit of plaintiff- respondent No.1, for a long date i.e. for July 19, 2011. Since the contesting parties before this Court claim that high stakes are involved and the rights of the parties largely depending upon the adjudication of the application under Section 8 of the Act filed by the petitioner and they have also consented to argue the matter before the trial Court in case the date of hearing is pre-poned from July 19, 2011 to June 7, 2011, the circumstances of the present case warrant that a direction should be given to the trial Court, in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to prepone the date of hearing and decide the application under Section 8 of the Act filed by the petitioner. In view of the above circumstances, it is ordered that the date of hearing in case M/s Girnar Fibres Limited Vs. IFCI Ltd. and another, fixed for hearing before the Court of Sh.Hem Raj Mittal, Civil Judge (JD), Chandigarh, for July 19, 2011 will be preponed to June 7, 2011. Parties are directed to appear before the said Court through their respective counsel for hearing of the application under Section 8 of the Act on June 7, 2011. The trial Court will decide the application by June 13, 2011. In case the matter is to be adjourned for any reason, the trial Court will take up the matter for adjudication of application under Section 8 of the Act on day to-day basis. C.R. No. 3260 of 2011 (O&M) [5] The application under Section 8 of the Act will be positively decided by June 13, 2011. Disposed of. This order be communicated to the trial Court by the Registry. Dasti on payment of usual charges. June 3, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE