Sarat Chandra Mohapatra and Vijay Prakash Goel, JJ. - (1.) THESE two appeals by the defendants, against an order refusing to stay the suit in view of arbitration clause in the agreement and grant of temporary injunction. Appellants are ill -advised to add the learned presiding officer as party to these appeals. Learned counsel for appellants agree that presiding officer being a party be expunged. Stamp Reporter who examines the record and memorandum of appeal shall point out this defect in all appeals and where a person is added as party who was not a party in the lower court, should be treated as a defect so that appeal does not proceed further until defect is removed or is dismissed for non -removal of the defect inspite of opportunity to remove the same.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is a work contractor, which entered into an agreement with the appellants for execution of work. During such execution, appellants entered into agreement with another contractor for executing balance work. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 2 filed a suit for permanently restraining appellants from entrusting the work to another contractor and for having saddled plaintiff with extra cost incurred for such work. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for temporary injunction. Trial court having granted temporary injunction, appellants have filed these appeals and this court has stayed operation of that part of the impugned order granting temporary injunction. Thus, there is no order of restraint against appellants at present.
(3.) APPELLANTS filed applications for stay of the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Trial court has rejected the application on the ground that appellants have not raised such objection at earliest opportunity and the stage for appointment for arbitrator has not yet come, as provided in the arbitration clause.;