Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application for review has been filed against the judgment dated April 12, 2011 passed by this Bench in C.O. No.2654 of 2007.
(2.) THE short fact is that two revisional applications being C.O. No.2654 of 2007 and the C.O. No.3211 of 2007 have been disposed of by the common judgment dated April 12, 2011 by this Bench. THE said judgment in C.O. No.2654 of 2007 is under challenge in this application for review. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, this Bench finds that the above noted two revisional applications were disposed of by the common judgment dated April 12, 2011. The learned Advocates of both the parties were allowed to make argument over the two matters and accordingly, they did so referring several decisions. All the submissions and the decision referred to by both the sides have been discussed in details in the judgment under challenge. Therefore, in order to succeed in this application for review, the petitioner is required to show either of the conditions as laid down in Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. has been fulfilled. During argument, Mr. Chakraborty has referred to the provisions of Sections 8, 11, 14, 16 & 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Mr. Chakraborty has contended that according to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the power of appointment of an arbitrator or the power of removal of the arbitrator lies only with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court where the cause of action arose. But, in the instant case, the concerned District Judge appointed the Arbitrators and so, the order under challenge should be set aside.
(3.) THUS, he submits that the concerned District Court had no jurisdiction at all to issue notice as per Sections 11, 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and so, the notice should be quashed. In the conclusion, he has submitted that there is an apparent mistake in the order dated April 12, 2011 in connection with the order dated May 17, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Misc. Case No.141 of 2004, holding that the misc. case is maintainable, and as such, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. Gayen appearing on behalf of the opposite parties supports the order under challenge. Having gone through the entire materials on record, I find that the dispute between the parties is over partition of the paternal properties. The contesting parties are the two full brothers and the dispute between the parties to the concerned misc. case is over partition of the paternal properties, share of crops etc. A written agreement was held amongst themselves and such agreement lays down the clause of arbitration.;