SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the applicant in G.A. No. 3238 of 2010, which is the respondent in A.P. No. 229 of 2005, was not represented on March 4, 2010 when A.P. No. 229 of 2005 was taken up and an order made thereon.
(2.) G.A. No. 3238 of 2010 is allowed and the order dated March 4, 2010 is recalled. Since A.P. No. 229 of 2005 was not disposed of by such order of March 4, 2010 and appears in the list, such request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is taken up immediately.
(3.) The petitioners refer to an arbitration clause in the tenancy agreement dated July 25, 1985 between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent on the other. The petitioners say that upon the expiry of the tenure under the original deed of lease, the duration was extended by a further writing but the terms and conditions of the original deed of lease remained unaltered.;