- (1.) HON 'ble The Chief Justice through order dated 17.11.2011 nominated this Bench to hear this appeal and fixed today's date in view of the direction of the Supreme Court to decide the matter very expeditiously.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 i.e. arbitrator and two witnesses of the agreement (alleged agreement) dated 5.1.1983 have not yet been served in appeal. However, Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant states that it is not necessary to take fresh steps to serve them as they were also defendants along with the appellant and this appeal is directed against judgment and decree through which trial court has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on the application of defendant respondent no.1 represented by Sri Triveni Shankar, learned counsel.
(3.) SRI Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant wanted to address the Court on the question of genuineness or otherwise of the agreement dated 5.1.1983. However, we did not permit him to raise the arguments as that would have been beyond the scope of this appeal. The Hon. Supreme Court observed that: All pleas are left open to the parties to be urged before the High Court including the plea of forgery.;