Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38982-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 282 of 2025 Appellant :- U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. Thru. Its Housing Commissioner And Another Respondent :- Basera City Developers Private Limited Lko. Thru. Director Sri Anupam Prakash Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- Puneet Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Sudeep Kumar Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025 1. An application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit has been filed along-with the appeal. 2. Reasons in detail have been spelt out in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application to which there is no objection. 3. In absence of any objection and the cause shown being sufficient, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order on Appeal. 4. Sri Sreshtha Srivastava and Ms Anjali Singh, advocates, have put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent and the same is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the sole respondent at the very outset have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present intra court appeal on the ground that the order passed by this Court in the proceedings under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not amenable to intra court appeal, by virtue of the specific bar contained under section 11(7) of the Act 1996. 6. In support of his submission made before this Court, Sri Sreshtha Srivastava has placed reliance upon a division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Moksh Innovations Inc. Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht versus E City Property Management And Services(p) Ltd. Thru. Property Manager and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 4875. Inviting our attention to para 9 of the aforesaid judgment, it is argued that in view of the settled proposition of law, the present intra court appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules is not maintainable. 7. We find force in the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent. The preliminary objection raised before this Court is sustained. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant on the contrary has not been able to explain the position of law contrary to what has been objected against the maintainability of the present intra court appeal. The preliminary objection in our considered opinion deserves to be upheld. The intra court appeal not being maintainable by virtue of section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is misconceived and the same deserved to be dismissed at the threshold of proceedings. 9. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (A.R. Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench