Tarun Chatterjee,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated, 8th of January, 2007, of the High court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No 1246 of 2006, whereby the High Court had dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 7th of June, 2006 passed in I.A. No. 494 of 2006 (in O.S. No. 526 of 2006) by the 1st Addl. District Munsif at Coimbatore, wherein the appellant had prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator.
(3.) The facts leading to the filing of this appeal which could be derived from the case made out by the appellants are summarized in a nutshell for the better understanding of the dispute at hand: The appellant had entered into a partnership with the respondents on 7th of April, 2003 to constitute a partnership firm for the purpose of carrying on the business of Engineering Works under the name and style of "Maestro Engineers". The abovementioned firm had initially commenced its functioning from the premises situated at 41, KPR Lay Out 5th Street, Nanda Nagar Singanallur, Coimbatore-5, (in short the "suit premises"), which belonged to the father of the appellant. The appellant took active part in setting up the firm and was instrumental for the construction of the same. Differences started creeping up between the appellant and the respondents and the appellant sent a notice dated 3rd of November, 2005, to the respondents, being dissatisfied with their conduct. The appellant had asserted in the notice that the firm was set up by a partnership deed dated 7th of April, 2003 and that he and the respondent no 3 had initially invested a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/-, each for the capital investment of the firm but in the partnership deed it was only mentioned as Rs. 1,00,000/- against the name of the appellant. He had further asserted malpractices happening inside the firm, which were supported by the respondents. There were also allegations of collusion amongst the respondents for driving out the clients of the appellant and forging the accounts of the firm. The appellant also offered his retirement from the firm and asked for his share of the salary and the profits incurred by the firm. In response to the notice sent by the appellant, the respondents sent a reply dated 11th of November, 2003, wherein they admitted the factum of the partnership entered into by them with the appellant but allegedly denied the claim of the appellant that he had invested a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- towards the establishment of the firm. In response to the reply sent by the respondents, the appellant sent a notice dated 1st of December, 2005, wherein he again reiterated his stand that he had invested a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- for the establishment of the firm and not an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as was alleged by the respondents in their reply. The appellant, thereafter, sent another notice dated 24th of February, 2006, to the respondents stating that the respondents were responsible for the problems created by the parties and it was their responsibility to resolve the disputes amicably between them. It was alleged that the respondents had colluded themselves in order to siphon of the money of the partnership firm for their personal gain. In the notice dated 3rd of November, 2005, the appellant had reiterated that he was ready to retire from the firm if the share of profits and arrears of salary due to him and the interest thereon was given to him. He had further called upon the respondents to settle the arrears of amount within 15 days and to make arrangements for his retirement failing which he had put them on notice to refer the matter to arbitration. The respondents subsequently filed a suit being O.S. No. 526 of 2006, under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC before the Court of the District Munsif of Coimbatore for a declaration that the appellant is not a partner of the Respondent No 1 (the firm herein) after 18th of November, 2005, and to prevent him from causing any disturbance to the respondent no 1 for its peaceful running by way of a permanent injunction. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") being I.A. No. 494 of 2006 in the Court of the District Munsif at Coimbatore on 12th of March 2006, which was rejected by his order dated 7th of June, 2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed a civil revision case being CRP(PD) No. 1246 of 2006 along with a petition for stay being M.P. No. 1 of 2006 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court by its order dated 8th Of January, 2007, affirmed the aforesaid order of the District Munsif at Coimbatore and dismissed the civil revision petition and also the petition for stay filed by the appellant. It is against this order of the High Court in respect of which the instant special leave petition was filed by the appellant, which on grant of leave was heard by us in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. ;