Sri. D.vijay Goutam

1 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

APVS000028922025

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes,

Visakhapatnam

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

CEP No.5/2025 in COS No.13/2020

Between :

M/s.Sriram Infra Projects, represented by its Managing Partners 1) Sri Ravanam Raja, S/o. R.V.V.S.N.Murthy, aged 41 years, Aadhar No.7655 5365 3090 & Cell No.9912247666, & 2) Sri Kommula Srinivas, S/o. Madhava Rao, aged 44 years, Aadhar No.3477 2654 8061 & Cell No.9347833444, situated at Door No.21-26/3, Flat No.G3, Jyothi Enclave, Viman Nagar, Opp. Airport Road, Visakhapatnam-530009.

…Petitioner/Decree Holder

And :

1. Sri Meesala Suneel Kumar, S/o. M.Subhakar Rao, aged about 45 years, D.No.16-120, Chetti Balija Veedhi, near Railway Gate, Visakhapatnam-530027, Phone No.9866544760, Aadhar No.2987 9795 2912.

2. Smt. Gottumukkala Padmavathi, W/o. G.Pandurganga Rao, aged about 53 years, R/at.G-2, Peela Homes, Old Venkojipalem, H.B.Colony Road, Visakhapatnam-530002, Phone No.9246614955, Aadhar number not known to the decree holder.

2 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

3. Sri Kodavali Suryachandra Rao, S/o. K.Seshagiri Rao, aged about 62 years, D.No.12-214, Adarsha Nagar, Opp.IDPL Colony, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad-500037, Phone No.7936225599, Aadhar No.6826 7872 3322.

4. Sri Vallabhaneni Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late V.Sankaram, aged about 60 years,D.No.21-218/4,KakaniNagar,N.A.D.Post, Visakhapatnam-530009, Phone No.9848127436, Aadhar No.6363 8842 8092.

5. Smt. Vallabhaneni Padmaja, W/o. V.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 56 years,D.No.21-218/4,KakaniNagar,N.A.D.Post, Visakhapatnam-530009, Phone No.9848127436, Aadhar number not known to the decree holder.

6. Sri Kondapaneni Vijaya Krishna, S/o. K.Moulaiah, aged about 49 years,D.No.21-56/2,KakaniNagar,N.A.D.Post, Visakhapatnam-530009, Phone No.9247166699, Aadhar No.5176 6317 8516.

Siri ‘A Sweet World’ Shop No.13, NTR Stadium Complex, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur-07.

7. Sri Movva Murali Krishna, S/o. M.Venkateswarlu, aged about 51 years, D.No.40-6-22/1, Flat No.D-3, Sita Apartment, Revenue Nagar, Mogal Rajapuram, Vijayawada-520010, Phone number and Aadhar number not known to the decree holder.

8. Smt. Kodavali Buli Rani, W/o. K.Surya Chandra Rao, aged about 65 years, D.No.12-214, Adarsha Nagar, opp. IDPL Colony, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad-500037, Phone No.7396225599, Aadhar number not known to the decree holder.

9. Sri Ravanam Ramu, S/o. Ravanam Satyanarayana Murthy, aged about 44 years, D.No.21-70-4, Kakani Nagar, Kanakamahalakshmi Nagar, N.A.D.Post, Visakhapatnam-530009, Phone No.9652255000, Aadhar No.7694 3645 2171.

3 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

10. Sri Movva Rohini Kumar, S/o. Movva Subba Rao, aged about 56 years, D.No.21-56/2, Kakani Nagar, N.A.D.Post, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-530009, Phone No.9393072249, Aadhar number not known to the decree holder.

11. Smt. Kankanala Anusha, W/o. Kankanala Bhanu Prasad, aged about 38 years, D.No.21-218/4, Kakani Nagar, behind Sivalayam Temple, N.A.D.Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530009, Phone No.9848127436, Aadhar number not known to the decree holder.

12. Sri Kommula Lakshmana Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana Bose, aged about 41 years, opp. Radio Station, near Gowtham School, Lakshmi Apartments, 4th Floor, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-530046, Phone No.9848465680, Aadhar number not known to the decree holder.

13. Sri Nalla Govinda Bhaskar (Died).

14. Smt. Yerra Usha Rani, W/o. Yerra Vara Prasad, aged about 60 years, D.No.6-172/7A, Balakrishna Puram, opp. Polytechnic College, Bapatla-522101, phone number and aadhar number not known to the decree holder.

15. Sri Kamisetty Chenchayya Naidu, S/o. K.Sriramulu, aged 65 years, Flat No.105, Naidugarillu apartment, 3rd lane, Viman nagar, Visakhapatnam-530009, Aadhar No.893536659924 & Cell No.9348559777.

16. M/s. Shree Constructions, Door No.31-10-21/1, Sathavahananagar, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents/Judgment Debtors

This petition came up for final hearing before me on 08.05.2026 in the presence of Sri T.V.S.K.Kanaka Raju & Co., Advocates for the Petitioner/ Decree Holder and of Sri V.Srujan Vegi, Advocate for the Respondent No.16/ Judgment Debtor No.16 and Respondents No.1, 4 & 15/Judgment Debtors No.1, 4 & 15 having remained ex parte and the said ex parte order was set aside on 08.05.2026and no relief is claimed against Respondents No.2, 3, 5 to 14/judgment debtors No.2, 3, 5 to 14 4 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam wherein Respondent No.13/judgment debtor No.13 died and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This CEP is filed seeking execution of decree in COS.No.13/2020 by way of attachment and sale of execution petition schedule properties.

No relief is claimed against judgment debtors No.2, 3, 5 to 14.

2.The facts in brief are suit in COS.No.13/2020 was decreed on 11.12.2024 and defendants No.1 to 16 therein were directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,31,47,298/- (Rupees Nine Crores Thirty One Lakhs Forty

Seven Thousand Two Hundred And Ninety Eight Only) together with interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.6,19,22,018/- (Rupees Six Crores

Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand And Eighteen Only) and they were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Only) and costs of the suit.

3.The execution petition is filed stating that despite decree and judgment passed in COS.No.13/2020, defendants did not pay any amount towards satisfaction of the decree. The decree holder sought for realization of decretal amount by way of attachment and sale of CEP schedule properties. CEP schedule properties belonging to judgment debtors No.1, 4, 5 and 16.

4.The judgment debtors No.1, 4 and 5 were set ex parte on 12.08.2025 and by way of Order dated 08.05.2026, Order setting judgment debtors No.1, 4 and 5 ex parte was set aside.

5 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

5.The judgment debtor No.16 filed his counter denying CEP averments and stated that a memorandum of understanding was arrived at between parties on 30.04.2025 and it was agreed that a sum of

Rs.10,20,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores And Twenty Lakhs Only) shall be paid towards full and final satisfactions of decree in COS.No.13/2020 and also AOP.No.24/2020 pending on the file of the learned VII

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam shall be withdrawn by decree

holder/plaintiff. The judgment debtor No.16 sought for dismissal of execution petition.

6.During the course of enquiry, both the parties expressed their willingness to settle the dispute amicably. Hence, dispute was referred to mediation and the parties were directed to appear before the mediator.

7.The learned mediator sent his report dated 08.05.2026 stating that mediation was successful. Terms of settlement entered between decree holder and judgment debtors No. 1, 4, 5 and 16 were recorded by the mediator. They are as follows:

“6. Terms & Schedule of Settlement:

1) The decretal amount of Rs.13,19,87,542/- (Rupees Thirteen crore Nineteen lakh eighty seven thousand five hundred and forty two only) is compromised, adjusted and agreed by the Second Party/J.Drs. to a reduced amount of Rs.10,20,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Twenty Lakhs only) in full and final satisfaction of the decretal amount subject to due compliance of the terms herein including specifically Clause 6 herein below with reference to interest payment in addition to the agreed amount of Rs.10,20,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Twenty Lakhs only). The First Party/D.Hr. also hereby agrees to accept the amount of Rs.10,20,00,000/- 6 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam (Rupees Ten Crores Twenty Lakhs only) in full and final satisfaction of the decretal amount strictly subject to compliance of the terms and conditions agreed herein.

2) The First Party/DHrs and the Second Party/ JDrs have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 30th April, 2025 wherein it was agreed that the Second Party/ JDrs shall make the payment for full and final satisfaction of the agreed amount of Rs. 10,20,00,000/- within five months from the date of order of the Court recording the dismissal of A.O.P 24/2020 as not pressed. The Order of dismissal was obtained in June 2025 but the certified copy of the order was received on 6th November 2025. The computation of the five-month period shall commence from 6th November, 2025, being the date on which the certified copy of the order in A.O.P. No.24/2020 was received and acknowledged by both parties.

3) To prove the bonafides of the Second party/ JDrs, the second party/ JDrs paid an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) by way of cheque bearing cheque no. 001303 dt: 08/05/2025 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Gajuwaka branch to the First Party/ DHrs in part satisfaction of the aforesaid agreed/adjusted decretal dues of Rs. 10,20,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore Twenty lakh only) as detailed herein above and specifically clause 6 of these terms herein below.

4) The five months period expired on 5th April 2026. However, the Second party/ JDrs have requested for an extension of time to make the repayment of the balance agreed amount of Rs. 9,70,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crore Seventy Lakh only) together with agreed interest till 31st December 2026. Considering their request, in order to give the second party / JDrs one last opportunity to make the payment of the agreed amount, the First Party / DHrs 7 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam are hereby extending the time for repayment till 31st December 2026. No further extension of time shall be granted to the Second Party/ JDrs and in case the Second Party/ JDrs fail to make the payment before 31st December 2026, the First Party/ DHrs shall proceed with the Execution petition CEP 05/2025.

5) The Second party/ JDrs have issued a cheque today i.e. on 08-05-2026 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) bearing cheque no.001304, dt: 30-03-2026 on drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Gajuwaka branch to the First Party/ DHrs as another part payment out of Rs. 9,70,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crore Seventy Lakh only). Hence, the remaining amount to be paid by the Second party/ JDrs to the First party/ DHrs towards agreed/adjusted decretal amount is Rs. 8,70,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Seventy Lakh only) together with agreed interest.

6) As per clauses 6 and 7 of the Memorandum of Understanding dt: 30th April 2025, the Second party / JDrs are liable to pay interest @ Re.1/- (one rupee) per month per hundred upto three months i.e. upto 5th July 2026. Thereafter, the Second party / JDrs shall be liable to pay an interest @ Rs.1-50ps (One rupee fifty paise) per month per hundred on the balance agreed amount of is Rs. 8,70,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Seventy Lakh only) together with agreed interest to the First Party/ DHrs upto 31st December 2026.

7) In the event the Second Party/Judgment Debtors propose to sell any property forming part of CEP No. 05/2025, the Second Party/JDrs shall prior to effecting such transaction obtain prior permission from the Hon’ble Court of Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam. While seeking such permission, the Second Party/JDrs shall make a full and fair disclosure of 8 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam the proposed sale consideration and all material terms of the transaction. Upon completion of such sale, the entire sale consideration so realised shall be paid to the First Party/DHrs without any deduction or delay and in such manner as may be directed by the Hon’ble Court.

8) The Second Party/J.Drs. do hereby confirm and declare that they have not preferred any appeal against the decree & judgment dt:11-12-2024 passed in C.O.S.13/2020 and the Second Party/J.Drs undertake not to prefer any appeal against the said decree & judgment.

9) Upon payment of the amount agreed hereinabove by the Second Party/J.Drs. to the First Party/D.Hr., the same shall be considered as a payment under Order XXI Rule 1 C.P.C. and an application shall be filed praying the

Hon’ble Court to record full satisfaction of the decretal

amount and the First Party/D.Hr., shall cooperate with the Second Party/J.Drs. in such an eventuality. Whatever payment is made as per the agreement shall be deemed to be a payment into the Hon’ble Court in the manner contemplated under Order XXI Rule 1 C.P.C.

10) In the eventuality of the Second Party/J.Drs. not complying with or conforming to this understanding reached between them and the First Party/D.Hr. and in case there is any deviation from the agreed terms of the settlement/understanding mentioned herein by the Second Party/J.Drs., the First Party/D.Hr. shall not be bound by the agreed adjusted decretal amount of Rs.10,20,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Twenty Lakhs only) together with agreed interest and shall have unfettered right to claim actual decretal debt apart from exercising other legal remedies available to it under law and without prejudice to the rights of the First Party available under the decree dt:11-12-2024.

9 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

6. Default Clause:

In the event of any default, delay, or failure on the part of the Second Party/J.Drs. in complying with any of the terms and conditions of this settlement, including failure to make payment within the stipulated time, the entire benefit of reduction of the decretal amount shall stand automatically withdrawn.

Consequently, the First Party/D.Hr. shall be entitled to recover the full decretal amount as per the decree dated 11.12.2024 along with interest, after giving due credit to any amounts already paid, and shall be at liberty to proceed with execution proceedings and/or initiate any other legal remedies available under law, without any further notice.”

8.The Managing Partners of decree holder company and judgment debtors No.1, 4, 5 and 16 were present before this Court. Both the parties stated that they settled the dispute amicably and terms of compromise was reduced to writing. They stated that they signed on terms of compromise on their volition and amount shall be paid and received as mentioned in the mediators report and the decree holder affirmed the same and also AOP.No.24/2020 on the file of the learned

VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam was withdrawn. The parties also stated that CEP schedule properties can be sold towards satisfying the Award with prior permission of the Court.

9.The terms of compromise as ascertained by this Court appear to be voluntary. The learned counsels for the respective parties also stated that both the parties arrived at the terms and compromise of their volition. The terms of settlement appear to be true, valid and enforceable.

10 CEP No.5/2025 in COS.No.13/2020, Dt.08.05.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

10.In the result, this execution petition is closed in terms of compromise recorded between decree holder and judgment debtors No.

1, 4, 5 and 16 before the learned mediator on 08.05.2026. Attachment of

CEP schedule properties, if any, is hereby raised. The decree holder is at liberty to file fresh CEP if the terms of compromise are not fulfilled by judgment debtors No. 1, 4, 5 and 16.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court this the 8 th day of May, 2026 .

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam // TRUE COPY //

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

1

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

APVS000028502018

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes,

Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018

Between :

1. M/s.Sreepada Real Estates & Developers, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Kantabattuni Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.662, Site Opp. Sai Apartments, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2.Kankabattuni Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.662, Site Opp. Sai Apartments, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. … Petitioners/Plaintiffs

And :

1. Sri Pulim Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.late Venkat Reddy, Aged 61 years, R/o.D.No.49-54-16, Balaiah Sastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Kalyani Residency, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

2. Smt. Pulim Rama Devi, W/o. Pulim Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, Aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.49-54-16, Balaiah Sastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Kalyani Residency, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

3. Pulim Sirisha, D/o. Pulim Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, Aged 34 years, R/o.D.No.49-54-16, Balaiah Sastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Kalyani Residency, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

2

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

4. Pulim Manoj Kumar Reddy, S/o. Pulim Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, Aged 31 years, R/o.D.No.49-54-16, Balaiah Sastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Kalyani Residency, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

… Respondents/Defendants

This petition came up before me for final hearing on 15.04.2026 in the presence of Sri G.Ramesh, Advocate for Petitioners/Plaintiffs and of Sri M.Ramdas, Advocates for Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 and of Sri R.N.Sahu, Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4/Defendants No.2 to 4 and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This application is filed under Order XI Rule 1(5) of Code of Civil

Procedure as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking to receive certified copies of, judgment dated 13.08.2018 in C.C.No.120/2017 on the file of Special Magistrate Court No.III, Kukatpally and judgment dated 08.04.2025 in O.S.No.65/2019 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge,

Visakhapatnam on file as additional documents.

2.The plaintiffs are petitioners herein. The facts in brief are, suit in

COS.No.10/2018 is filed seeking specific performance of development agreement dated 30.01.2023 or in the alternative for recovery of ₹ 1,71,36,372/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy One Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand

Three Hundred And Seventy Two Only) towards cost of plaintiff’s share and ₹ 1,48,64,572/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand

Five Hundred And Seventy Two Only) said to be the amount spent by plaintiff for development of land together with interest. The suit stands posted for trial.

3. According to petitioners, a case in C.C.No.150/2017 was filed against defendant No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he 3

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam was convicted of the said offence by learned Special Magistrate Court No.III,

Kukatpally on 13.08.2018. It is further stated that suit in O.S.No.65/2019 is also filed against respondent No.1 on the file of learned XI Additional District

Judge, Visakhapatnam and it was decreed on 08.04.2025.

4.Petitioners stated that judgments in both the above mentioned cases were not pronounced by the time of filing of the above suit in

COS.No.10/2018. The petitioners sought for receiving documents on their behalf.

5.The respondents No.2 to 4 filed their counter denying the petition averments. Respondent No.1 filed their memo adopting the counter filed by respondents No.2 to 4. The respondents stated that document sought to be produced by petitioners relate to petitioner No.2 whereas suit in

COS.No.10/2018 is filed seeking specific performance in favour of plaintiff

No1 firm. The respondents stated that plaint does not remotely refer to either of these documents and in the absence of specific averments regarding documents, they cannot be permitted to be produced on behalf of petitioners.

6.It is further stated that Sections 34 to 38 of Bharathiya Sakshya

Adiniyam 2023 which correspond to Sections 40 to 44 of Indian Evidence Act deal with relevancy of judgments and stated that both these judgments are irrelevant as existence of those judgments is not a fact in issue.

7.It is further stated that appeals are pending against both the judgments.

The respondents sought for dismissal of the application.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

Submissions of learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs:

9.While reiterating the facts of the case, learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs argued that petitioner No.2 filed a criminal case in

C.C.No.120/2017 on the file of the Special Magistrate Court No.III, Kukatpally against respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 was convicted by the said office. He further submitted that the suit in O.S.No.65/2019 on the file of the XI

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam was filed by petitioner No.2 against

respondent No.2 and the suit was decreed in favour of petitioner No.2.

10.He argued that both these judgments go to show that there were prior transactions between parties to the suit and they are relevant in view of fact that respondents denied the entire case of plaintiffs. He argued that both the judgments clearly show that there were prior transactions between the parties and it only lends credence to plaintiff with defendants entered into development agreement with them. According to learned counsel for petitioners, judgments were delivered after filing of suit and hence could not be produced earlier. He submitted that pronouncement of judgments in both the cases after filing of present suit in COS.No.10/2018 constitutes reasonable cause within the meaning of Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC and sought for allowing this application.

Submissions of learned counsel for respondents/defendants Nos.2 to 4:

11.Opposing grant of any relief in favour of petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 argued that petitioners did not remotely referred to existence of these documents in the plaint and hence they cannot be permitted to introduce the documents at this stage. He further argued that 5

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

Order XI Rule 1(5)CPC prohibits introduction of any documents at a belated stage without any reasonable cause.

12.The learned counsel for respondents further submitted that plaintiffs did not even remotely state about filing of above cases and cannot seek to introduce documents at such belated stage.

13.According to learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, introduction of both these documents at such belated stage jeopardizes the defence of defendants. He further argued that these judgments are not at all relevant to the facts of present case and Sections 34 to 38 of the Bharathiya Sakshya

Adiniyam 2023 which corresponds to Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence

Act deals with relevancy of judgments. He submitted that only those category of judgments that are enumerate under Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act are relevant and no others. By placing reliance on judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors.1, he argued that the said judgment is not admissible as it does not fall within the ambit of Section 42.

14.He argued that both the judgments do not specify the conditions laid down in Section 43 of Indian Evidence Act and they are inadmissible in evidence. He argued that viewed from any angle, these documents cannot be permitted to be placed on record by plaintiffs. He sought for dismissal of the application.

15.The points for determination are:

1.Whether documents sought to be produced by petitioners/plaintiffs can be received on their behalf?

1 AIR 1993 SC 1664 6

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

2. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

16.Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 under which the present application is filed reads as follows:

“Order XI - Disclosure, Discovery and Inspection of documents in suits before the Commercial Division of a High Court or a Commercial Court:

1. Disclosure and discovery of documents.— (5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint.”

17.The petitioners sought for bringing on record certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.120/2017 dated 13.08.2018 on the file of Special Magistrate Court

No.III, Kukatpally filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.65/2019 dated 08.04.2025 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed for recovery of money.

The parties to both the cases are petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 herein.

These judgments cannot be termed relevant to present suit which is filed for specific performance of development agreement. The petitioner did not disclose the grounds on which they can be termed relevant to the facts of the present case.

7

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar v. Radha

Krishna Singh & Ors.2, “It is also well settled that a judgment in rem like judgments passed in probate, insolvency, matrimonial or guardianship or other similar proceedings, is admissible in all cases whether such judgments are inter parties or not. In the instant case, however, all the documents consisting of judgments filed are not judgments in rem and therefore, the question of their admissibility on that basis does not arise, As mentioned earlier, the judgments filed as Exhibits in the instant case, are judgments in personam and therefore, they do not fulfil the conditions mentioned in Sec.41 of the Evidence Act. ”

19.The judgments sought to be produced are not judgments in rem and their admissibility in the present case does not arise. Moreover, Order XI

Rule1(5) prohibits production of documents at a belated stage. In the absence of any foundation basis in pleadings about the cases in C.C.No.120/2017 on the file of Special Magistrate Court No.III, Kukatpally filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and O.S.No.65/2019 on the file of the XI

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed for recovery of money and also

in view of the fact that both the judgments are not relevant to decide the present suit and also considering their inadmissibility, those judgments cannot be permitted to be produced by petitioners. The point is answered accordingly against petitioners/plaintiffs.

2 AIR 1993 SC 1664 8

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

POINT NO.2:

20.In the result, this application is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam // TRUE COPY //

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

1

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

APVS000028502018

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes,

Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018

Between :

1. M/s.Sreepada Real Estates & Developers, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Kantabattuni Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.662, Site Opp. Sai Apartments, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2.Kankabattuni Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.662, Site Opp. Sai Apartments, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. … Petitioners/Plaintiffs

And :

1. Sri Pulim Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.late Venkat Reddy, Aged 61 years, R/o.D.No.49-54-16, Balaiah Sastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Kalyani Residency, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

2. Smt. Pulim Rama Devi, W/o. Pulim Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, Aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.49-54-16, Balaiah Sastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Kalyani Residency, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

3. Pulim Sirisha, D/o. Pulim Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, Aged 34 years, R/o.D.No.49-54-16, Balaiah Sastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Kalyani Residency, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

2

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

4. Pulim Manoj Kumar Reddy, S/o. Pulim Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, Aged 31 years, R/o.D.No.49-54-16, Balaiah Sastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Kalyani Residency, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

… Respondents/Defendants

This petition came up before me for final hearing on 15.04.2026 in the presence of Sri G.Ramesh, Advocate for Petitioners/Plaintiffs and of Sri M.Ramdas, Advocates for Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 and of Sri R.N.Sahu, Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4/Defendants No.2 to 4 and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This application is filed under Order XI Rule 1(5) of Code of Civil

Procedure as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking to receive certified copies of, judgment dated 13.08.2018 in C.C.No.120/2017 on the file of Special Magistrate Court No.III, Kukatpally and judgment dated 08.04.2025 in O.S.No.65/2019 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge,

Visakhapatnam on file as additional documents.

2.The plaintiffs are petitioners herein. The facts in brief are, suit in

COS.No.10/2018 is filed seeking specific performance of development agreement dated 30.01.2023 or in the alternative for recovery of ₹ 1,71,36,372/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy One Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand

Three Hundred And Seventy Two Only) towards cost of plaintiff’s share and ₹ 1,48,64,572/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand

Five Hundred And Seventy Two Only) said to be the amount spent by plaintiff for development of land together with interest. The suit stands posted for trial.

3. According to petitioners, a case in C.C.No.150/2017 was filed against defendant No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he 3

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam was convicted of the said offence by learned Special Magistrate Court No.III,

Kukatpally on 13.08.2018. It is further stated that suit in O.S.No.65/2019 is also filed against respondent No.1 on the file of learned XI Additional District

Judge, Visakhapatnam and it was decreed on 08.04.2025.

4.Petitioners stated that judgments in both the above mentioned cases were not pronounced by the time of filing of the above suit in

COS.No.10/2018. The petitioners sought for receiving documents on their behalf.

5.The respondents No.2 to 4 filed their counter denying the petition averments. Respondent No.1 filed their memo adopting the counter filed by respondents No.2 to 4. The respondents stated that document sought to be produced by petitioners relate to petitioner No.2 whereas suit in

COS.No.10/2018 is filed seeking specific performance in favour of plaintiff

No1 firm. The respondents stated that plaint does not remotely refer to either of these documents and in the absence of specific averments regarding documents, they cannot be permitted to be produced on behalf of petitioners.

6.It is further stated that Sections 34 to 38 of Bharathiya Sakshya

Adiniyam 2023 which correspond to Sections 40 to 44 of Indian Evidence Act deal with relevancy of judgments and stated that both these judgments are irrelevant as existence of those judgments is not a fact in issue.

7.It is further stated that appeals are pending against both the judgments.

The respondents sought for dismissal of the application.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

Submissions of learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs:

9.While reiterating the facts of the case, learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs argued that petitioner No.2 filed a criminal case in

C.C.No.120/2017 on the file of the Special Magistrate Court No.III, Kukatpally against respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 was convicted by the said office. He further submitted that the suit in O.S.No.65/2019 on the file of the XI

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam was filed by petitioner No.2 against

respondent No.2 and the suit was decreed in favour of petitioner No.2.

10.He argued that both these judgments go to show that there were prior transactions between parties to the suit and they are relevant in view of fact that respondents denied the entire case of plaintiffs. He argued that both the judgments clearly show that there were prior transactions between the parties and it only lends credence to plaintiff with defendants entered into development agreement with them. According to learned counsel for petitioners, judgments were delivered after filing of suit and hence could not be produced earlier. He submitted that pronouncement of judgments in both the cases after filing of present suit in COS.No.10/2018 constitutes reasonable cause within the meaning of Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC and sought for allowing this application.

Submissions of learned counsel for respondents/defendants Nos.2 to 4:

11.Opposing grant of any relief in favour of petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 argued that petitioners did not remotely referred to existence of these documents in the plaint and hence they cannot be permitted to introduce the documents at this stage. He further argued that 5

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

Order XI Rule 1(5)CPC prohibits introduction of any documents at a belated stage without any reasonable cause.

12.The learned counsel for respondents further submitted that plaintiffs did not even remotely state about filing of above cases and cannot seek to introduce documents at such belated stage.

13.According to learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, introduction of both these documents at such belated stage jeopardizes the defence of defendants. He further argued that these judgments are not at all relevant to the facts of present case and Sections 34 to 38 of the Bharathiya Sakshya

Adiniyam 2023 which corresponds to Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence

Act deals with relevancy of judgments. He submitted that only those category of judgments that are enumerate under Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act are relevant and no others. By placing reliance on judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors.1, he argued that the said judgment is not admissible as it does not fall within the ambit of Section 42.

14.He argued that both the judgments do not specify the conditions laid down in Section 43 of Indian Evidence Act and they are inadmissible in evidence. He argued that viewed from any angle, these documents cannot be permitted to be placed on record by plaintiffs. He sought for dismissal of the application.

15.The points for determination are:

1.Whether documents sought to be produced by petitioners/plaintiffs can be received on their behalf?

1 AIR 1993 SC 1664 6

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

2. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

16.Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 under which the present application is filed reads as follows:

“Order XI - Disclosure, Discovery and Inspection of documents in suits before the Commercial Division of a High Court or a Commercial Court:

1. Disclosure and discovery of documents.— (5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint.”

17.The petitioners sought for bringing on record certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.120/2017 dated 13.08.2018 on the file of Special Magistrate Court

No.III, Kukatpally filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.65/2019 dated 08.04.2025 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed for recovery of money.

The parties to both the cases are petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 herein.

These judgments cannot be termed relevant to present suit which is filed for specific performance of development agreement. The petitioner did not disclose the grounds on which they can be termed relevant to the facts of the present case.

7

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar v. Radha

Krishna Singh & Ors.2, “It is also well settled that a judgment in rem like judgments passed in probate, insolvency, matrimonial or guardianship or other similar proceedings, is admissible in all cases whether such judgments are inter parties or not. In the instant case, however, all the documents consisting of judgments filed are not judgments in rem and therefore, the question of their admissibility on that basis does not arise, As mentioned earlier, the judgments filed as Exhibits in the instant case, are judgments in personam and therefore, they do not fulfil the conditions mentioned in Sec.41 of the Evidence Act. ”

19.The judgments sought to be produced are not judgments in rem and their admissibility in the present case does not arise. Moreover, Order XI

Rule1(5) prohibits production of documents at a belated stage. In the absence of any foundation basis in pleadings about the cases in C.C.No.120/2017 on the file of Special Magistrate Court No.III, Kukatpally filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and O.S.No.65/2019 on the file of the XI

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed for recovery of money and also

in view of the fact that both the judgments are not relevant to decide the present suit and also considering their inadmissibility, those judgments cannot be permitted to be produced by petitioners. The point is answered accordingly against petitioners/plaintiffs.

2 AIR 1993 SC 1664 8

I.A.No.278/2025 in COS No.10/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

POINT NO.2:

20.In the result, this application is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam // TRUE COPY //

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

1 CEP.No.19/2024 in COS.No.5/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

APVS000086362024

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes,

Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

CEP. No.19/2024 in COS.No.5/2018 (Old O.S.No.211/2011)

Between : M/s.BVSR Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Reptd. by its Managing Director, B.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, aged 38 years, represented by his GPA holder, Sri S.Panakala Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 48 years with registered office at D.No.8-2-686/B/11/6/1, Plot No.9, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34.

… Plaintiff/Decree Holder

And:

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Principal Secretary to Government, I & CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

3. The Superintending Engineer I & CAD Irrigation Circle, Visakhapatnam-2.

4. The Executive Engineer I & CAD Irrigation Circle, Visakhapatnam.

… Defendants/Judgment Debtors 2 CEP.No.19/2024 in COS.No.5/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

This application came up on 15.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBevara Satyanarayana, Sri Bevara (K) Deepthi Sree, Sri V.Satish Naidu, Sri S.Krishna, Ms.P.Swathi, Ms.N.Vijaya Lakshmi and Ms.K.Lakshmi, Advocates for Decree Holder and of Sri P.V.Ramana Prabhat, Government Pleader for Judgment Debtors. The application having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This execution petition is filed seeking execution of decree passed in ₹ COS.No.5/2018 wherein suit was decreed for a sum of 40,00,000/- (Rupees

Forty Lakhs Only) together with interest and costs.

2.In this execution petition, decree-holder sought execution of decree in

COS.No.5/2018 by attachment and sale of movables lying in office of judgment-debtors. It is stated that defendant is Government of Andhra

Pradesh and is capable of discharging decretal amount but is avoiding the same only to cause hardship to decree holder.

3.According to decree holder, furniture in the office of judgment debtors

No.3 and 4 as mentioned in the schedule should be attached towards realization of decretal amount.

4.The judgment debtor No.3 filed its counter denying CEP averments.

The judgment debtor stated that an appeal in COMCA.No.21/2025 is filed

before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging judgment and

decree in COS.No.5/2018 and the same is pending adjudication. The judgment debtor stated that an application for stay in execution is also pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and hence the 3 CEP.No.19/2024 in COS.No.5/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam present execution petition is proceeded with. The judgment debtor No.3 sought for dismissal of CEP. The judgment debtor No.4 filed a memo adopting the counter filed by judgment debtor No.3.

5.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

Submissions of learned counsel for Decree Holder:

6.While reiterating facts of case, learned counsel for decree holder argued that judgment debtors No.3 and 4 are government officials and they did not show any grounds why this CEP should not be proceeded with. He argued that mere pendency of an appeal in an application with stay are no grounds to deprive the decree-holder to realize fruits of decree.

7.The learned counsel for decree-holder further argued that judgment debtors No.3 and 4 have sufficient means to pay decretal amount but refused to pay the same of reasons best known to judgment debtors.

8.He argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its Order

dated 20.11.2025 passed in COMCA.No.21/2025 was pleased to direct that

execution shall not be proceeded with till 27.11.2025. He submitted that as on today there is no Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh granting stay of execution and this Court can proceed with execution.

9.The learned counsel for decree-holder further argued that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Periyammal (dead) through L.Rs and others v.

V.Rajamani and Another1, pleased to direct that execution proceedings 1 2025 INSC 325 4 CEP.No.19/2024 in COS.No.5/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam should be completed within six months from the date of filing. He submitted that decree holder can no longer be denied the fruits of decree. He sought for attaching petition schedule movable properties and bringing them for sale towards realization of decretal amount.

Submissions of learned Government Pleader for judgment debtors:

10.Opposing execution of decree, learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of judgment debtors No.3 and 4 and argued that present execution petition is filed by decree holders despite being well aware about pendency of appeal in COMCA.No.21/2025 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh against judgment and decree in COS.No.5/2018. He submitted that an application is also pending and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its Orders was pleased to grant stay of execution on several occasions and last such extension was till 27.11.2025.

11. He argued that mere fact that the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh did not specifically extend the stay after 27.11.2025 does not grant liberty to decree holder to seek execution of decree. He submitted that stay is deemed to be in force and this Court cannot proceed with execution. He submitted that this execution petition is not maintainable during the pendency of Appeal in COMCA.No.21/2025 and sought for its dismissal.

12.The points for determination are:

1.Whether judgment debtors No.3 and 4 have shown any reasonable cause not to proceed with execution?

2. To what relief?

5 CEP.No.19/2024 in COS.No.5/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

POINT NO.1:

13.The present execution petition is filed seeking execution of judgment and decree passed in COS.No.5/2018 dated 30.10.2019. This execution petition filed on 08.08.2024.

14.Order XXI Rule 22 CPC reads as follows:

“22. Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases.— (1) Where an application for execution is made—

(a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or

(b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of section 44A, or

(c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent, the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him: Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than two years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within two years from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence of the application being made against the legal representative of the judgment- debtor if upon a previous application for execution against the same person the Court has ordered execution to issue against him. (2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if, for reasons to be 6 CEP.No.19/2024 in COS.No.5/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice.”

15.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its Order dated 20.11.2025 passed in COMCA.No.21/2025 was pleased to direct this Court not to proceed with execution of decree till 21.07.2025. The judgment debtors did not produce any Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passing any similar direction after 27.11.2025. It is evident that after 27.11.2025 there is no embargo on this Court to proceed with execution of decree. It was argued on behalf of judgment debtor that this Court cannot proceed with execution of decree during pendency of appeal as well as application seeking stay of execution of decree.

16.Order XLI Rule 5(1) CPC stated that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree. It further states that the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.

17.It is evident that mere pendency of appeal is not a ground to not to proceed with execution of the decree. Further a perusal of record as well as case status of COMCA.No.21/2025 as shown in the official website of the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh goes to show that Order of the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed not to proceed with execution only till 27.11.2025. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that this Court cannot proceed further with execution.

7 CEP.No.19/2024 in COS.No.5/2018, Dt.28.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

18.The judgment debtors did not show any other cause as to why execution should not be proceeded with.

19.Under such circumstances, this Court is duty bound to proceed with execution of decree in COS.No.5/2018. The point is answered accordingly in favour of decree holder.

POINT NO.2:

20.In the result, objections of judgment debtors under Rule 22 are held not tenable. Issue notice to judgment debtors No.3 and 4 under Order XXI Rule 43 CPC through Court and Speed Post on payment of process.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam // TRUE COPY //

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

1 CAOP No.14/2026, Dt.29.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

APVS000019622026

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL

OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes,

Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

CAOP No.14/2026

Between:

R.S.Pabbla Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Vice President Sri K.N.Mishra, S/o. Krishna Nand Mishra, Aged 61 years, Resident of D.No.9- 14-1, Flat No.503, 4thFloor, Kota Empire, VIP Road, Visakhapatnam-530002. ..…Petitioner And:

1. M/s. Sarada Metals and Alloys Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, having office at D.No.50-96-4/1, Floor II & III, Srigowri Nilayam, Seethammadhara North Extension, Visakhapatnam-530013.

2. Smt. K.Vijay Lakshmi, Sole Arbitrator, R/at.Flat No.9/B, Road No.7, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Phone No.9849807562. ..…Respondents

This petition came up for hearing before me on 28.04.2026 in the presence of Sri C.S.Sekhar, Advocate for petitioner and Smt. V.S.Surekha, Advocate for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 being sole arbitrator 2 CAOP No.14/2026, Dt.29.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam and this matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’, for brevity) seeking extension of the mandate of the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal for a further period of six months.

2.The facts in brief are, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by its Order in Arbitration Application No.18/2022 was pleased to appoint the

Hon’ble Arbitrator in respect of dispute between the parties to this

application. Proceedings commenced before the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal.

3.The present application is filed stating that pleadings of the parties

before the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal were completed on 10.03.2024 and the

proceedings were to end on or before 10.03.2025 as per Section 29A(1) of the Act. The petitioner stated that the mandate of the Hon’ble Arbitral

Tribunal was extended by both the parties under Section 29A(3) of the Act till 10.09.2025 and thereafter it was extended till 10.03.2026 by Order dated 08.12.2025 passed in CAOP.No.35/2025.

4.It is stated that Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal was pleased to seek certain clarifications and petitioner stated that it filed certain additional documents in support of its claims. It is also stated that there were discussions between the parties for amicable settlement consuming sometime. The petitioner stated that the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal needs further time for completion of procedural formalities and pronouncement of Award.

3 CAOP No.14/2026, Dt.29.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

5.The petitioner stated that the mandate of Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal had expired on 10.03.2026 and sought for extension of mandate for a further period of six months.

6.The respondent No.1 did not oppose this application.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

Submissions of learned counsel for petitioner:

8.The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the mandate of

Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal that was extended till 10.03.2026 by Order dated

08.12.2025 passed in CAOP.No.35/2025, should be further extended considering the substantial progress before the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal.

9. He argued that the matter is posted for making submissions by the parties and the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal will pass an Award thereafter. He sought for allowing this application.

Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1:

10.The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted no objection on their behalf as the petitioner and sought further time for completion of procedural formalities and pronouncement of award.

11.Now the points for determination are,

1. Whether the mandate of the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal can be extended as sought by the petitioner?

2. To what relief?

4 CAOP No.14/2026, Dt.29.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam

POINT No.1:

12.Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act under which the present application is filed reads as follows: “29A. Time limit for arbitral award.— (1)The award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, an arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to have entered upon the reference on the date on which the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, have received notice, in writing, of their appointment. (2) If the award is made is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree. (3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub- section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months. (4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period: Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the Court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent. for each month of such delay. (5) The extension of period referred to in sub-section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court. (6) While extending the period referred to in sub-section (4), it shall be open to the Court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators and if one or all of the arbitrators are substituted, the arbitral proceedings shall continue from the stage already reached and on the basis of the 5 CAOP No.14/2026, Dt.29.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam evidence and material already on record, and the arbitrator(s) appointed under this section shall be deemed to have received the said evidence and material. (7) In the event of arbitrator(s) being appointed under this section, the arbitral tribunal thus reconstituted shall be deemed to be in continuation of the previously appointed arbitral tribunal. (8) It shall be open to the Court to impose actual or exemplary costs upon any of the parties under this section. (9) An application filed under sub-section (5) shall be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party.”

13.The present application is filed stating that extension of the mandate is necessary in view of the fact that matter is at an advanced stage and requires further time for completion of procedural formalities and pronouncement of the Award.

14.The petitioner has set out in detail the proceedings before the

Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal since its constitution. The material on the record

shows that the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal is devoting much of its valuable time in conducting the proceedings. The material on record goes to show that the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal has made considerable progress. The

Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal may require some more time to pass an award.

Hence, its mandate can be extended by a further period of six months from 10.03.2026. The point is accordingly answered.

POINT No.2:

15.In the result, this application is allowed without costs by extending mandate of the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal for a further period of 6 (six) 6 CAOP No.14/2026, Dt.29.04.2026 Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam months from 10.03.2026 to 10.09.2026, in respect of the dispute between the parties to this application.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-, xx D.Vijay Goutam,

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam // TRUE COPY //

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam