Patna High Court – Orders
M/S Ankit Enterprises vs M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar on 17 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.6 of 2023
======================================================
M/S Ankit Enterprises through its Proprietor namely Vinod Kumar Gododia
aged about 59 years Gender-Male Son of Sampatrai Gododia, resident of
Mohalla- 227G, Kabadevi Road 19, Near Narayan Temple Building, Zaver
Bagh, Mumbai 400002.
... .. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar through its Proprietor Sri Sunil Kumar, at
Mohalla- Sutapatti, P.S.- Town District- Muzaffarpur.
2. Sri Sunil Kumar, Son of Sri Ram Banka, Proprietor of M/S Sree Ram Sunil
Kumar, resident of Sariya Ganj Gajadhar Chaudhary Lane, Dhobia Gali,
P.S.- Town, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwanath Chaudhary, Advoate
Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, Advocate
Mr. Noumaan Ahmad, Advocate
Ms. Varsha Rani, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anirvan Choudhari, Advocate
Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
15 17-02-2026
This Civil Revision application has been filed
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
(hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”) read with Section 115 of
the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
“CPC“) against the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-XIII, Muzaffarpur in
Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of 2015, whereby and where
under the learned trial Court rejected the prayer of petitioner
challenging the maintainability of Arbitration Misc. Case no.
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
2/17
814 of 2015 on the ground of limitation as well as jurisdiction.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that
during 2010-11 and thereafter there was business transaction
between both petitioner and opposite parties and according to
invoice/receipts admittedly there was clause of Arbitration in
case of dispute between the parties and also entire
invoice/receipts further disclose that entire transaction has taken
place at Mumbai. Further, due to regarding nonpayment of dues
ultimately Petitioner filed Arbitration case No- A/74 of 2013-14
before Hindustan Chamber of Commerce 442 Kalwa Devi
Road, Mumabai 400002 in which notices were issued to the
present opposite parties but in spite of valid service of notice
and summon they chooses not to appear and ultimately after
following the due process of law ultimately Award dated
11.06.2014 was granted in favour of petitioner directing return
of Rs- 10,57,127/-.
4. Pursuant to grant of Award dated 11.06.2014
ultimately petitioner filed appropriate application in Bombay
High Court under its original jurisdiction and after following
due process of law Award dated 11.06.2014 was sent to the
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
3/17
District Judge, Muzaffarpur for its execution and on being
receipt ultimately Execution Case No-81 of 2017 was registered
and same is pending for disposal in which present opposite
parties have already appeared and contesting the same. Further,
from raising certain grounds Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of
2015 has been filed challenging the Award dated 11.06.2014 in
which pursuant to notice present petitioner has appeared and
ultimately raising issue of maintainability on the ground of
limitation as well as jurisdiction petition dated 22.03.2022 was
filed by the petitioner. It is stated here that present opposite
parties stating the factual details also and filed rejoinder on
22.04.2022 and prayer was made to dismiss the petition dated
22.03.2022.
5. Further, on 05.07.2022 a petition was filed by
present opposite parties praying for condoning the delay in
filing the Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of 2015 and further
another petition dated 07.07.2022 was filed raising the
genuineness of the invoices/receipts brought on record during
proceedings of Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of 2015. After
hearing the parties learned Additional District & Sessions Judge
13th Muzaffarpur, vide order dated 22.07.2022 passed in
Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of 2015 dismissed the petition
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
4/17
dated 22.03.2022 filed by the petitioner challenging the
maintainability of Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of 2015 on
the ground of limitation as well as jurisdiction. Hence the
present Civil Revision Application.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Arbitration Misc Case No. 814 of 2015 was filed by opposite
party on 17.04.2015 i.e. after more than 3 months from the date
of knowledge of award dated 11.06.2014, Which is in
contravention of Section 34(3) and 36 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996. He further submits that the opposite
parties have also filed a limitation petition for condonation of
delay in filing Misc case 814 of 2015 and the same also signifies
that there was a delay in filing Arbitration Misc Case 814 of
2015. As per proviso of Section 34(3) of the Act, 30 days liberty
is given only if applicant is prevented by sufficient cause. Same
is also not applicable in this case since Misc case was filed after
more than 4 months and also there was no sufficient cause
preventing the opposite party in filing the said Misc case.
6.i. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the averments made in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the
counter affidavit is completely wrong, as the present Civil
Revision is maintainable since in this case the petitioner has
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
5/17
challenged, the order by which the learned Court has decided
the maintainability by rejecting the objection petition of the
petitioner, but not the final arbitral award. He further submits
that the opposite parties were not prevented from any means and
deliberately did not appear before Arbitration case No.
A/74/2013-14 before Hindustan Chamber of Commerce,
Mumbai. The Arbitration Misc Case No. 814 of 2015 was filed
by opposite parties against the award dated 11.06.2014, is not
maintainable since the same is in contravention of Section 34(3)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as well as the same
is filed before the Court not having the jurisdiction to set aside
the award. The learned Court did not consider the facts and
provisions of law advanced by petitioner correctly and passed
the order dated 22.07.2022 which is arbitrary, unjust and fit to
be set aside.
6.ii. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
para 13 of P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham & Anr reported
in (2009) 9 SCC 173, The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a
provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or
statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction”. Further,
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
6/17
learned counsel relied upon the judgment by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in para no. 14 of J. Kumaradasan Nair v. IRIC
Sohan reported in (2009) 12 SCC 175, Reaffirmed that it is a
well-settled principle that misquoting a provision is not fatal to
an application if the power to grant relief exists. He further
relied upon the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. vs Union of India reported
in 2019 (2) SCC 455, held that:
“(9)………… This has been settled by this
Court in its decision in Union of India v
Popular Construction Company (2001) 8
SCC 470 [LQ/SC/2001/2264) at para 12
and 14, where it held as follows-
“As far as the language of Section 34 of the
1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words
are “but not thereafter” used in the proviso
to sub-section (3). In our opinion, this
phrase would amount to an express
exclusion within the meaning of Section
29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would
therefore bar the application of Section 5 of
that Act. Parliament did not need to go
further. To hold that the court could
entertain an application to set aside the
award beyond the extended period under
the proviso, would render the phrase “but
not thereafter” wholly otiose. No principle
of interpretation would justify such result.
Here the history and scheme of the 1996
Act support the conclusion that the time-
limit prescribed under Section 34 to
challenge an award is absolute and
unextendible by court under Section 5 of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
7/17
(13) A plain reading of sub-section (3)
along with the proviso to Section 34 of the
1996 Act, shows that the application for
setting aside the award on the grounds
mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 34
could be made within three months and the
period can only be extended for a further
period of thirty days on showing sufficient
cause and not thereafter. The use of the
words “but not thereafter” in the proviso
makes it clear that the extension cannot be
beyond thirty days……….”
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the instant revision application is not at all maintainable
either on facts nor on law since the learned Court has decided
the issue finally, therefore, the said order is appealable under
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and as
such an appeal was to be preferred against the impugned order.
He further submits that there is no provision either in CPC or
under the Arbitration Act 1996 that a Civil Revision can be
preferred against any order passed by the Principal Civil Judge
in an appeal filed under the A&C Act 1996, therefore, the
instant civil revision filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act
1996, read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
not at all maintainable. He further submits that the petition
under Section 34 is preferred by the opposite parties before the
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
8/17
learned Court in which the petitioner filed a petition to reject the
miscellaneous case as not maintainable but the prayer of the
petitioner was rejected by the learned Court, therefore, the civil
revision preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act with
the aid of Section 115 CPC is not at all maintainable.
7.i. He further submits that the impugned order is
a well-reasoned and taken into consideration all the submissions
made by the petitioner as well as the opposite parties only
thereafter has come to a decision that the Arbitration Misc. Case
no. 814 of 2015 is maintainable and there is no error in the order
for interference of the Hon’ble Court. He further submits that the
instant civil revision is not at all maintainable under law nor on
facts since no revision can be filed against an order which is
appealable according to the statute with the aid of CPC.
8. The central issue before this Court is whether
the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the petition of
the petitioner in the Arbitration Misc. Case no. 814 of 2015 on
the ground that the said miscellaneous case was filed within
prescribed time limit and all cause of action arose at
Muzaffarpur, so the Court has jurisdiction to look into the
matter.
9. Before considering the submissions made by
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
9/17
learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to certain
relevant provisions of the A&C Act and CPC. Section 5 of the
A&C Act reads as follows: –
“5. Extent of Judicial Intervention: –
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, in
matters governed by this Part, no judicial
authority shall intervene except where so
provided in this Part.”
Section 37 refers to appealable orders and states as follows: –
“37. Appealable Orders: – (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, an
appeal shall lie from the following orders
(and from no others) to the Court
authorized by law to hear appeals from
original decrees of the Court passing the
order, namely: –
(a) refusing to refer the parties to
arbitration under section 8;
(b) granting or refusing to grant any
measure under section 9;
(c) setting aside or refusing to set
aside an arbitral award under Section
34.
(2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from
an order of the arbitral tribunal. –
(a) accepting the plea referred tin sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3) of
section 16; or
(b) granting or refusing to grant an
interim measure under section 17.
(3) No second appeal shall lie from an
order passed in appeal under this section,
but nothing in this section shall affect or
take away any right to appeal to the
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
10/17
Supreme Court.”
Section 115 of the CPC is extracted below: –
“115. Revision. – (1) The High Court may
call for the record of any case which has
been decided by any Court subordinate to
such High Court and in which no appeal
lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court
appears-
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a
jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its
jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity,
The High Court may make such order in the
case as it thinks fit.
Provided that the High Court shall not,
under this section, vary or reverse any
order made, or any order deciding an issue,
in the course of a suit or other proceeding,
except where the order, if it had been made
in favour of the party applying for revision,
would have finally disposed of the suit or
other proceedings.
(2) The High Court shall not, under this
section, vary or reverse any decree or
order against which an appeal lies either
to the High Court or to any Court
subordinate thereto.
(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of
suit or other proceeding before the Court
except where such suit or other proceeding
is stayed by the High Court.
Explanation.- In this section, the expression
“any case which has been decided”
includes any order made, or any order
deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
11/17other proceeding.”
Coming first to the non-obstante clause contained in Section 5
of the A&C Act, the said provision states in clear terms that
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, when it
comes to matters that arise under Part I of the A&C Act, no
judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in
this Part.
10. Upon consideration of the pleadings,
materials on record, and the submissions advanced, this Court
finds that this Court need not detain itself any further on the
above aspect in the light of the fact that the legal position
relating to the maintainability of a petition under Section 115 of
the CPC stood altered with effective from 01.07.2002 and the
amendment to the said provision does not give any leeway to a
party to invoke the said provision against any interlocutory
order, such as the one that has been passed in the instant case,
more so when no jurisdictional error has been pointed out by
learned counsel for the petitioner. To understand which order
can be considered as an interlocutory order and which is not an
interlocutory order, we shall import the reasoning from the
Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Amar Nath v.
State of Haryana reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137 wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the revisional power
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
12/17
under the Criminal Procedure Code and held that,
“Any order which substantially affects the
right of the accused, or decides certain
rights of the parties cannot be said to be an
interlocutory order so as to bar a revison to
the High Court against that order … But
orders which are matters of moment and
which affect or adjudicate the rights of the
accused or a particular aspect of the trial
cannot be said to be interlocutory order so
as to be outside the purview of the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.”
11. In case of Project Director National
Highways No. 45 E and 220, National Highways Authority of
India Vs M. Hakeem and another reported in (2021) 9 SCC 1,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to assimilate the Section
34 jurisdiction with the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115
of the CPC is again fallacious. Section 115 of the CPC expressly
sets out the three grounds on which a revision may be
entertained and then states that the High Court may make “such
order as it thinks fit”. These latter words are missing in Section
34 given the legislative scheme of A&C Act, 1996.
12. In Deep Industries Limited v. ONGC
Limited, reported as 2019 SCC Online SC 1602, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has discussed the circumstances in which the
High Courts ought to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and emphatically reiterated that the
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
13/17
A&C Act is a special self-contained code that requires minimal
judicial intervention to ensure speedy resolution of dispute.
Citing the view expressed in the case of Fuerst Day Lawson
Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited, reported as (2011) 8 SCC
333, that the A&C Act being a self-contained and exhaustive
code, a letters patent would be excluded on invoking the general
principle that where the Special Act is a self-contained code, it
impliedly excludes the applicability of the general law
procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court thus held: –
“14. Given the aforesaid statutory provision
and given the fact that the 1996 Act
repealed three previous enactments in order
that there be speedy disposal of all matters
covered by it, it is clear that the statutory
policy of the Act is that not only are time
limits set down for disposal of the arbitral
proceedings themselves but time limits have
also been set down for Section 34
references to be decided. Equally, in Union
of India v. Varindera Constructions Limited
(supra), this Court has imposed the self-
same limitation on first appeals under
Section 37 so that there be a timely
resolution of all matters which are covered
by arbitration awards. 15. Most significant
of all is the non-obstante clause contained
in Section 5 which states that
notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, in matters that arise under Part I
of the Arbitration Act, no judicial authority
shall intervene except where so provided in
this Part. Section 37 grants a constricted
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
14/17
right of first appeal against certain
judgments and orders and no others.
Further, the statutory mandate also
provides for one bite at the cherry, and
interdicts a second appeal being filed (See
Section 37(2) of the Act).”
(emphasis added)
13. The above aspect has been amply highlighted
by the Supreme Court in Deep Industries (supra), where relying
on a previous ruling in Tek Singh v. Shashi Verma, reported as
2019 SCC Online SC 168, and noticing the amendments made
to Section 115 of the CPC, it has been observed as follows: –
25. Mr. Rohatgi is also correct in pointing
out that the legislative policy qua the
general revisional jurisdiction that is
contained by the amendments made to
Section 115 C.P.C. should also be kept in
mind when High Courts dispose of petitions
filed under article 227. The legislative
policy is that no revision lies if an
alternative remedy of appeal is available.
Further, even when a revision does lie, it
lies only against a final disposal of the
entire matter and not against interlocutory
orders. These amendments were considered
in Tek Singh v. Shashi Verma, 2019 SCC
Online SC 168, in which this Court
adverted to these amendments and then
stated:
7. A reading of this proviso will show that,
after 1999, revision petitions filed under
Section 115 CPC are not maintainable
against interlocutory orders.
8. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 115
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
15/17CPC is to be exercised to correct
jurisdictional errors only. This is well
settled. In D.L.F. Housing & Construction
Company Private Ltd., New Delhi v. Sarup
Singh, (1970) 2 SCR 368 this Court held:
“The position thus seems to be firmly
established that while exercising the
jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not
competent to the High Court to correct
errors of fact however gross or even errors
of law unless the said errors have relation
to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the
dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this
section on their plain reading quite clearly
do not cover the present case. It was not
contended, as indeed it was not possible to
contend, that the learned Additional
District Judge had either exercised a
jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had
failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in
him, in recording the order that the
proceedings under reference be stayed till
the decision of the appeal by the High
Court in the proceedings for specific
performance of the agreement in question.
Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to
the case in hand. The words “illegally” and
“with material irregularity” as used in this
clause do not cover either errors of fact or
of law; they do not refer to the decision
arrived at but merely to the manner in
which it is reached. The errors
contemplated by this clause may, in our
view, relate either to breach of some
provision of law or to material defects of
procedure affecting the ultimate decision,
and not to errors either of fact or of law,
after the prescribed formalities have been
complied with. The High Court does not
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
16/17seem to have adverted to the limitation
imposed on its power under Section 115 of
the Code. Merely because the High Court
would have felt inclined, had it dealt with
the matter initially, to come to a different
conclusion on the question of continuing
stay of the reference proceedings pending
decision of the appeal, could hardly justify
interference on revision under Section 115
of the Code when there was no illegality or
material irregularity committed by the
learned Additional District Judge in his
manner of dealing with this question. It
seems to us that in this matter the High
Court treated the revision virtually as if it
was an appeal.”
(emphasis added)
14. Upon an overall consideration of the
pleadings, evidence, and settled principles of law, the petitioner
cannot find fault in the said order by filing a petition under
Section 115 of the CPC and invoke the revisional/supervisory
powers of the High Court. Instead, if aggrieved therefrom, seek
its remedy as contemplated under Section 37 of the A&C Act. It
is settled principles of law that the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 being a self-contained code, no revision under
Section 115 CPC lies against such an order. Section 37 exhausts
the appellate remedies and permitting a revision would amount
to judicial interference not contemplated by the Act.
15. Considering the contentions raised on behalf
of the petitioner and respondents and well settled law, the instant
Patna High Court C.R. No.6 of 2023(15) dt.17-02-2026
17/17
civil revision is not at all maintainable under law nor on facts
since no revision can be filed against an order which is
appealable according to the statute with the aid of CPC.
Accordingly, the present Civil Revision No. 06 of 2023 is
dismissed as not maintainable.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U
