SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) There are many mistakes in the petition and it betrays a fundamental misconception. Persons who are not parties to the arbitration agreement have been needlessly and recklessly impleaded in this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Since the first petitioner and the second respondent are not parties to the arbitration agreement on which the petition is founded, the names of the first petitioner and the second respondent are directed to be deleted from the array of parties.
(2.) The manner in which the prayers have been couched would reveal further confusion on the petitioner's part. Prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the petition are clearly not maintainable.
(3.) The second petitioner herein (who is the only petitioner upon the name of the first petitioner having been deleted) entered into an agreement with the first respondent herein (which is the only respondent after the name of the second respondent being deleted) for the sale of a piece of land in Howrah. The petitioner was the owner of the land and the agreement for sale dated March 28, 2010 also records that the petitioner was a promoter of C D Steel Private Limited which was sought to be impleaded as the first petitioner herein. In fact, it is the admitted position that the agreement that is the basis of the petition, is not the one appearing as Annexure 'A' to the petition but is the one appearing as Annexure 'D' to the affidavit-in-reply.;