- (1.) The appellant is the son of the deceased first respondent. The first respondent claiming to be the sole proprietor of M/s. B.S. Puri & Co., filed a petition under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' for short) praying for the award dated 29.12.1993 passed by the sole arbitrator (third respondent herein) in regard to disputes between M/s. B.S. Puri & Co. and the second respondent, be made a rule of the court. In the said petition, the petitioner was described thus : "Birinder Singh Puri, 225/18-A, Chandigarh, Proprietor M/s. B.S.Puri & Co.".
(2.) In the said proceedings, the appellant herein made an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party. The appellant alleged that 'M/s. B.S.Puri & Co.' was a partnership firm of which his father, himself and his brother were the partners, and that his father had filed the petition under section 14(2) and section 17 of the Act by misleading the Court that 'M/s. B.S.Puri & Co.' -- the claimant under the Arbitration Award was a proprietary concern. He alleged that instead of showing the claimant as a partnership firm, his father had tampered and fabricated records to show that M/s. B.S.Puri & Co. was a proprietary concern. He contended that as a partner of the firm of M/s. B.S.Puri & Co. he was entitled to be heard in the matter and therefore he should be impleaded as a party.
(3.) The said application was resisted by the first respondent. The trial court dismissed the said application by order dated 23.12.2000. In the course of its order, the trial court referred to the fact that the appellant had earlier filed an application for impleadment and that application had been rejected; that a review petition filed by him was also rejected; and that the revision petition filed by him against the said order had also been disposed of. The trial court also noted that the appellant had also filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm of M/s. B.S.Puri & Co. and rendition of accounts. The trial court held that as first respondent had been recorded as the sole proprietor of claimant in the Arbitration Award and the claim of the appellant as to status as partner had not been adjudicated or declared by any court, he was neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the proceedings.;