- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.361 OF 2016 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. BASTI GAJANANA SHENOY, S/O LATE BASTI VENKATESH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A 112, ANVITH APARTMENTS, NEAR URWA MARIGUDI TEMPLE, URWA, MANGALORE-575 006. 2. SMT U SHANTHI SHENOY @ JYOTHI SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE BASTI VENKATESH SHENOY, W/O LATE U SADASHIVA SHENOY, R/A BARKE, MANNAGUDDA CROSS ROAD, MANGALORE-575 003. 3. SMT SHAKUNTHALA @ B SHRIMATHI PRABHU, D/O LATE BASTI VENKATESH SHENOY, W/O SRI ANANTHA NARAYNA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A PRABHU NIVAS, 1592, SAHYADRI TALKIES, NORTHERN EXTENSION, HASSAN-573 201. 4. SMT MANIKYA @ JAYA SHENOY, W/O SRI BHAMY NARAYANA SHENOY, C/O BHAMY NARAYANA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BHANDASALE MAIN ROAD, BANTWALA-574 211. 5. SMT ARUNA SHENOY @ SHUBHALAXMI KAMATH, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 D/O LATE BASTI VENKATESH SEHNOY, W/O SRI SHESHAGIRI KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A MAIN ROAD, KARKALA-574 104. 6. MR SURENDRA N PAI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7. MR NAGENDRA N PAI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 8. MR RAVINDRA N PAI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS No.6, 7 AND 8 ARE S/O NAGAPPA G PAI, C/O GAJANANA RICE MILLS, SAGARA-577 401. 9. SMT GEETHA NAGESH NAYAK, W/O SRI NAGESH NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A SHREE NIKETHAN, OPP.ZILLA PANCHAYATH SCHOOL, BEJAI KAPIKAD, MANGALORE-575 004. 10. SRI K ULLAS KAMATH, S/O LATE YASHAWANTHA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A LAXMINARASIMHA KRIPA, HAWALDAR BETTU ROAD KARKALA-574 104. 11. SRI K SANTHOSH KAMATH, S/O LATE YASHWANATHA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A LAXMI RAMANN NIVAS, NEAR G H ROAD, GANDHI MAIDAN, KARKALA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 12. SRI K GURUPRASAD KAMATH, S/O LATE YASHAWANTHA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A GAJANANA TRADERS, MANGALORE ROAD, KARKALA-574 104. 13. SMT SREELAXMI KAMATH, W/O LATE K HARISH KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, C/O DAMODAR NAIK, 16/759, 'PUNEETH', BEHIND PVS HOSPITAL, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, CALICUT-679 002. 14. K VIGNESH KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 15. K VINAYAKA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS BOTH 14 AND 15 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE K. HARISH KAMATH AND MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER/GUARDIAN SMT. SREELAXMI KAMATH AND R/A C/O DAMODAR NAIK, 16/759, 'PUNEETH', BEHIND PVS HOSPITAL, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, CALICUT-679 002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LATE SRI G VITTAL SHETTY, S/O LATE KITTANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A GUTTU HOUSE, KANNUR POST, MANGALORE-575 007 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 1(A). SMT. GULABI SHETTY G., MAJOR, 1(B). SRI. SUBHAKAR SHETTY, MAJOR, 1(C). SRI. LOKESH SHETTY, MAJOR, 1(D). SRI. SUDHEER SHETTY, MAJOR, 1(E). MS. SUDHA, MAJOR, 1(A) IS THE WIFE AND 1(B) TO (E) ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE G. VITTAL SHETTY, R/A "GUTTU HOUSE", KANNUR POST, MANGALURU-575 007. 2. SRI NAGAR NARAYANA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O LATE NAGAR MADHAVA SHENOY, R/A #12-1-86, A S R ROAD, DONGERKEY, MANGALORE-575 003. 3. MR RAJENDRA RAO M, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/A FANTASY APTS, K R ROAD, KARANGALPADY, MANGALORE-575 003. 4. MRS GEETHA VIKRAM KAMATH, D/O LATE BASTI VARADARAJ KAMATH, W/O VIKRAM KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VIKRAM PRINTERS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 SRINIVAS BHAVAN, PENDLENPET, MANGALORE-575 001. 5. MRS LATHA SHENOY, D/O BASTI VARADARAJ SHENOY, W/O R PRASAD SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 33 TEARS, R/A FLAT NO.204, 'SAI GRANDEUR', JAIL ROAD, MANGALORE-575 003. 6. MRS ANJANA SHENOY, D/O LATE BASTI VARADARAJ SHENOY, W/O RANDHIR SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A GURUKRIPA, C/O P R SHENOY, OP. APEKSHA RESIDENCY, WAREHOUSE ROAD, MANGALORE-3. 7. MR BASTI VENKATESH SHENOY, S/O LATE BASTI VARADARAJ SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/A D.NO.6-3-89, RAMANATH KRIPA, NEAR GANDHI PARK, GANDHI NAGAR, MANGALORRE-575 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR LRS OF DECEASED R1, SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R2, R4 TO R7 ARE SERVED) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2016 PASSED IN A.A. NO.4/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU DISMISSING THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER After addressing the arguments for sometime, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 files a memo. Memo reads as under: “The respondent No.1 respectfully submits that: The respondents have no objection for the termination of the arbitral proceedings subject to the rights of the respondents to agitate the claim before the Civil Court by filing the suit. The question as to the limitation to file suit is not raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has agreed for the above.” 2. Sri Nataraja Ballal, learned counsel has endorsed no objection on the said memo. 3. Placing the memo on record, to avoid the unnecessary controversy between the parties as to the arbitration proceedings and in view of the fact that one of the arbitrators is no more and a fresh arbitrator needs to be appointed, when revision petitioners are contending that there is no arbitration clause at all and there is no arbitral dispute, it is just unnecessary to direct the respondent who was the applicant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 before the arbitrator, to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance in respect of the dispute involved in the present revision petition. 4. Sri Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the respondent however expressed apprehension that the revision petitioners may raise objection if a fresh suit is filed before the Civil Court not only with regard to the maintainability, but also on the ground of limitation. 5. Such an apprehension on behalf of the respondent would stand quelled by observing that since it is the revision petitioners who have maintained that there is no arbitration clause and taking note of the fact that one of the arbitrators is no more, the respondent has decided to approach the Civil Court. 6. Therefore, it is advantageous for the revision petitioners inasmuch as they are succeeding in their attempt to establish before the Court all these years that the matter should be resolved before the Civil Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 7. Needless to emphasize that whenever a party is litigating in a forum which ultimately held to be not competent enough to decide the issue, benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act should enure to such party. 8. In the case on hand, since it is the revision petitioners who have maintained all these years that the dispute between the parties is not an arbitral dispute and there is no arbitration clause, the time spent in the proceedings before the arbitrator which has reached upto this Court in this revision, needs to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 9. Therefore, if a fresh suit is filed by the respondent, the question of maintainability of the suit before the competent Court as well as the question of limitation shall not be urged and considered by the Trial Court. 10. With that observation, the following: ORDER (i) Placing the memo on record, Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53277 CRP No. 361 of 2016 (ii) Pending arbitration proceedings stands terminated and respondent is at liberty to get his grievance redressed before the Civil Court in a duly constituted suit in accordance with law. (iii) If any such suit is filed time spent before arbitrator and this Court shall stands excluded under Section 14 of Limitation Act. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60