Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THESE two applications are directed against the order nos.20 dated May 17, 2007, order no.2 dated February 16, 2005 and order no.21 dated May 29, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Misc. Case No.141 of 2004 thereby holding that the misc. case is maintainable and rejecting an application for amendment of the misc. case. The two applications have arisen out of the orders as stated above at the instance of the rival parties one against the others, and as such, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) FOR convenience, I am discussing the C.O. No.3211 of 2007 first. C.O. No.3211 of 2007 This application is at the instance of the petitioner of the Misc. case and is directed against the order no.21 dated May 29, 2007 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the petition. The short fact is that the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 read with Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for cancellation of the agreement dated November 1, 1998 in between the parties, removal of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as arbitrators in respect of the properties described in the schedule of the application and for other reliefs. The petitioner and the opposite party no.1 are full brothers and the dispute amongst the parties to the Misc. Case is over partition of properties, share of crops, etc. A written agreement was held amongst themselves and such agreement lays down the clause of arbitration. In that misc. case, the petitioner filed an application for amendment for incorporation of certain paragraphs. For proper appreciation, the proposed amendment is incorporated below:- Paragraph 10(a)-i) only one Arbitrator (opp. Party No.2) executed his signature upon the Award, and the copy whereof not been issued to the Petitioner. ii) All Co-Sharers to the Schedule of property not been added in the proceedings. iii) The Petitioner was forced by opp. Party Nos. 2, 3 to execute signature upon some blank papers. iv) arbitrators were not impartial and inspite of subsisting order of status-quo passed in Misc. Case No.3 of 1999, passed Award dated 26.12.2000, for which arose Contempt Proceedings which is pending and etc. The copy whereof is annexed hereto and Marked B.
(3.) UPON hearing both the sides, the learned District Judge dismissed the application for amendment of the petition holding that the proposed amendments are irrelevant for adjudication of the dispute. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the above facts are not in dispute. Now, the short question involved is whether the learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the petition. From the proposed amendment, it is clear that two arbitrators were appointed to settle the dispute between the parties and the two arbitrators passed an award on December 26, 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner expressed his grievance. He filed the application for amendment of the petition. If the petitioner has any grievance against the award, his remedy is to take appropriate steps under Section 34 of the 1996 Act within the stipulated time, that is, within three months from the date of passing the award or one month extra time thereafter and not afterwards. After passing of the award, the question of removal as per Sections 13 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not lie at all.;