- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18129 WP No. 102908 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 102908 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. RAMESH CHANDRA S/O KARTICK CHANDRA DUTTA, AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED, R/O. FLAT NO. APH-6, SEVEN APARTMENTS, C.T.S. NO.4861/1/N, JADHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 019. 2. DR. RAJESH YASHWANT S/O PADUBIDRI YASHWANT SHENOY, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. FLAT NO.BPH-7, SEVEN APARTMENTS, C.T.S. NO.4861/1/N, JADHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 019. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARAD M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRESIDENT, THE SEVEN CONSTRUCTIONS FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, OFFICE AT: THE SEVEN APARTMENTS, CTS NO.4861/1/N, JADHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 019. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE SEVEN CONSTRUCTIONS, FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, OFFICE AT: THE SEVEN APARTMENTS, CTS NO.4861/1/N, JADHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 019. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.Y. DIXIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A. NO.2 DATED 03/02/2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.17 12:04:05 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18129 WP No. 102908 of 2025 BELAGAVI IN O.S. NO.928/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, MAY BE STAYED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 03.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.II filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in O.S.No.928/2024 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi1. 2. The Trial Court referred the dispute to the learned Arbitrator. 3. The Court has held that there is an arbitration clause and that the dispute is required to be referred to arbitrator. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not dispute the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is an interim order in favour of the petitioners, 1 For short, ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18129 WP No. 102908 of 2025 however, since the matter is now referred to the arbitrator, such interim relief cannot be granted in this proceeding. 6. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court, referring the dispute to arbitration by invoking Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. 8. The petitioners are at liberty to seek such interim relief as advised in law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 74