PUSHPALATA JAIN Vs. RAJ ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been registered on the basis of the communication dated 22/4/2019 sent by the learned Arbitrator, a retired Hon.Judge of this Court whereby he had made a request for exercise of the suo-motu power of review by this court and review the order dated 27/8/2018 passed in AC No.2/2013 to avoid injustice to the applicant.

(2.) The applicant had filed AC No.2/2013 with a prayer for appointment of Arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the parties with the plea that the applicant and respondent No.2 to were partnership in the Firm which was constituted by the deed dated 01/4/1992 and the applicant has 1/6 share in the property of the said partnership, but without the consent of the applicant the respondent No.1 to 6 had sold the property of the Firm to respondent No.7 to 10 by the registered sale deed dated 14/3/2006. The applicant had filed CS No.41-A/2009 before the Court of District Judge, Indore for declaration of title, possession and for cancellation of sale deed. In that suit, application u/O.7 Rule 11 of the CPC was filed by the respondents (defendants) with the plea that the applicant had a remedy of arbitration and the trial court by allowing the application by order dated 01/4/1992 had directed to get the dispute resolved through the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in para 17 of the partnership deed dated 01/4/1992. The writ petition against this order was dismissed with certain observations and the SLP was also dismissed. Thereafter the Arbitration Case was filed which was allowed by this court by order dated 27/8/2018 making certain observations about confining the arbitration proceedings to the parties to the arbitration agreement and appointing Hon.Justice S.P. Khare, Retired Judge of this Court as Arbitrator at whose instance this review petition has been registered.

(3.) Learned Arbitrator has requested for taking up the matter in suo motu exercise of power of review on the ground that this court has excluded respondent No.7 to 9 i.e. the assignees of the property from the ambit of the arbitration whereas the division bench of this court in the earlier round of litigation had decided this issue holding that the assignees are covered by the arbitration clause and they had stepped into the shoes of the respondent No.1 to 6, hence the dispute of the applicant with the respondents can be decided by the arbitration.