By consent, parties may arbitrate disputes over specific performance and cancellation of a registered sale deed.

The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the trial court’s order dated 20 March 2026 below Exh. 43 in Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2025, seeking dismissal of the application and interim protection concerning the suit land

The underlying suit involved, among other matters, specific performance of an agreement to sell and cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 19 June 2025

The parties clarified that the land had been purchased by Salibhadra Infracon LLP, although its partner had been named as respondent No. 7; the petitioner was directed to amend the cause title

During the hearing, the parties, including respondent No. 7, agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration, and the petitioner did not seek a reasoned decision on the petition

Whether the parties’ agreement to resolve the disputes in Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2025 through arbitration should be accepted in disposing of the Article 227 petition

Whether respondent No. 7 could participate in the arbitration and be precluded from objecting to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction over the disputes concerning specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed

Article 227 of the Constitution was the basis on which the petitioner sought supervisory relief against the trial court’s order

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was identified as the available route for seeking appointment of an arbitrator if the parties could not agree on the arbitrator’s name; the respondents’ counsel assured the Court that such an application would not be opposed

No precedent or broader rule of law was relied upon; the Court acted on the parties’ consensus to arbitrate

The Court did not decide the merits of the challenge to the order below Exh. 43.

Instead, because all parties, including respondent No. 7, agreed to arbitrate the disputes forming the subject matter of the suit, it accepted their request and permitted them to appoint an arbitrator.

To give effect to that consensus, the Court recorded that respondent No. 7 could participate and would not object that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to decide the specific-performance and sale-deed-cancellation disputes.

If the parties could not agree on an arbitrator, the petitioner could apply under Section 11.

The parties were permitted to appoint an arbitrator, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appointment under Section 11 if they could not agree; respondent No. 7 was permitted to participate and would not raise the specified jurisdictional objection.

No order as to costs was made.