Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1404 of 2025 in I.A.No.336 of 2025 in O.S.No.531 of 2023 filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant before us is the defendant No.2 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the Suit in O.S.No.531 of 2023. The plaintiffs filed the Suit for partition and separate possession of the Suit Schedule property and for recovery of mesne profits.

3. The Court is informed that the plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.2311 of 2023 for a direction on the defendant Nos.4-9 (sub-tenants) to deposit arrears of rent and future rents. The plaintiffs withdrew this application without seeking liberty of the Court to file a fresh I.A and filed I.A.No.336 of 2025 for the same relief i.e., for a direction on the defendant Nos.4-9 for deposit of monthly rent as per rental agreement till disposal of the Suit.

4. The appellant/defendant No.2, on the other hand, filed I.A.No.1404 of 2025 in I.A.No.336 of 2025 in O.S.No.531 of 2023 under section 8 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (‘1996 Act’) to stay all further proceedings and for referring the parties to arbitration on the ground that the Lease Deed dated 01.01.2013 executed by the grandmother of the plaintiffs in favour of the appellant/defendant No.2 contained an arbitration clause.

5. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.1404 of 2025 on the ground that the appellant/defendant No.2 had failed to comply with the requirements under section 8(2) of 1996 Act, in terms of producing the original or certified copy of the Lease Deed dated 01.01.2013. The Trial Court further observed that an unregistered lease deed cannot be received in evidence to prove the terms of tenancy or any arbitration clause contained therein in terms of the verdict in SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., ((2011) 14 SCC 66 ) and Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., ((2019) 9 SCC 209).

6. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.2 and the plaintiffs.

7. Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs has corrected the record by clarifying at the very outset that the original Lease Deed containing the Arbitration Clause was a part of the records before the Trial Court as on the date of the impugned order. Senior Counsel clarifies that the original Lease Deed containing the Arbitration Clause was produced in an earlier I.A. which was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Hence, the ground taken by the Trial Court of alleged non-compliance with section 8(2) of the 1996 Act, is hence removed in the light of the submissions.

8. Second, the two decisions relied upon by the Trial Court in paragraph No.21 of the impugned order namely SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra), and Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. (2 supra), were both considered and overruled in the decision of the Supreme Court in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ((2024) 6 SCC 1).

9. Admittedly, the impugned order had been passed on 07.10.2025 i.e., after the judgment in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements was pronounced on 13.12.2023.

10. Hence, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order on the limited ground of the Trial Court proceeding on an erroneous assumption. The Trial Court also misread the ratio of the decision in SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra) and the fact that the SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. (2 supra) were on different propositions of law. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. was subsequently overruled on the point of stamping of the Arbitration Agreement in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements. The Trial Court shall hence decide on the import of these judgments in the correct and relevant perspective.

11. C.M.A.No.429 of 2025, is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2025. All connected applications are accordingly disposed of. The Trial Court is requested to rehear the I.A.No.1404 of 2025 and make an effort to decide the same within four weeks from the date on which the Trial Court receives a copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the other points relied on by the Trial Court for dismissing the appellant’s I.A. as well as the I.A. filed by the plaintiffs. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records without any delay. There shall be no order as to costs.