R.R.Rastogi, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur on 22-6-1977 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-applicant with costs. The brief facts are these : The plaintiff-applicant, Jupitar Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company and Yugal Kishore Mansarmani is its Managing Director. The applicant ran a chit fund scheme and defendant-opposite party No. 1 joined that scheme on 11-4-1966 and was allotted Chit No. 30, the value being Rs. 10,000/-. The defendant No. 1 was paid Rupees 6,000/- after deducting Rs. 4,000/- on account of discount and the amount was repayable in monthly instalments of Rs. 200/each. Defendants 2 to 4 were sureties and on 19-4-1966 parties entered into an agreement, one of the clauses of which provided for arbitration in the event of any difference arising between the parties. Sri Sheo She-khar Dikshit was named as the sole arbitrator. THIS agreement was in the form of the letters addressed to the applicant, one by defendant No. 1 and the other by defendants 2 to 4 and the case was that the acceptance on behalf of the applicant was made orally and was also implied from the course of conduct of the parties.
(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 committed default in payment of instalments, whereupon the applicant referred the dispute to the arbitration of Sri Sheo Shekhar Dikshit, Advocate and that case was registered as Case No. D97 of 1970. The arbitrator started arbitration proceedings and issued a notice to the defendants pursuant to which they put in appearance and filed an objection challenging the arbitration agreement as also the making of a reference. In the meantime on 3-5-1976 the arbitrator died. The plaintiff-applicant then presented a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter the Act) which was registered as Suit No. 2292 of 1976 in the Court of Munsif City Kanpur. It was prayed that the defendants be called upon to file the arbitration agreement, that reference may be made to an arbitrator appointed by the Court, that the arbitrator be directed to file the award in the Court and a decree be passed in terms thereof. The defendants contested the petition on various grounds. It was contended that defendants 2 to 4 had not guaranteed the payment of the amount advanced to defendant No. 1, that they never entered into an arbitration agreement, that the filing of objections by them before the arbitrator could not entitle the plaintiff to file the petition under Section 20 of the Act. It was further pleaded that the suit in the present form was not maintainable and Sri Mansarmani had no authority to sign and file the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff company. Plea of limitation was also taken. It was also pleaded that reliefs 3 and 4 as claimed could not be granted.
(3.) THE trial Court framed as many as 10 issues and barring issues Nos. 6, 8 and 10 the rest were decided in favour of the applicant. Issues Nos. 6, 8 and 10 were as under : No. 6 : Whether reliefs 3 and 4 of the plaint are beyond the scope of Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act? No. 8 : To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? No. 10 : Whether in view of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint (sic);