- (1.) This application is at the instance of the petitioner of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is directed against the order no.27 dated May 27, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No.1349 of 2005 thereby allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the opposite party no.3.
(2.) The short fact is that the petitioner filed the said proceeding for recovery of money advanced with regard to a motor vehicle. The opposite party nos.1 is the hire purchaser and the opposite party no.2 is the guarantor of the said transaction. For non-payment of the money, the petitioner filed the said title suit praying for an award of Rs.3,57,434/-, declaration that the petitioner is the owner of the said motor vehicle, recovery of possession and other reliefs. During pendency of the said proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, the applicant /opposite party no.3 herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, in fact he is the owner of the said motor vehicle and he purchased the same upon taking a loan from the ICICI Bank. He has been paying the monthly instalments to the said bank and as such, he is the owner of the vehicle in question. Therefore, he should be added as a party to the proceeding. That application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revisional application.
(3.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was initiated for taking interim measures with regard to the subject matter of the property in dispute. Since the proceeding has been instituted under the Special Act, the parties to the suit should be as per terms of the arbitration 3 agreement held between the parties. He has referred to the definition of 'party' as per Section 2(h) of the Act of 1996. The 'arbitration agreement' has also been defined in Section 2(b) of the said Act of 1996 and the Section 7 of the said Act lays down what is the 'arbitration agreement'. Therefore, according to such provisions of the Special Act, the applicant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the arbitration proceedings. So, the learned Trial Judge has committed a wrong in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. It must be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that it is the applicant/opposite party no.3 herein who had purchased the vehicle in question upon taken loan from the ICICI Bank and the applicant has been paying the monthly instalments as per agreement with the bank. He has almost cleared up the dues to the bank and as such, he is the owner of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the applicant has an interest in the vehicle in question. So, the learned Trial Judge was justified in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. So, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution should be dismissed.;