Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) A petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was allowed by the order impugned.
(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the opposite parties. The petitioner claimed himself to be a partner having 40 per cent share in a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint the petitioner claimed that the various terms and conditions of the deed of partnership were tempered with by the opposite parties. In the suit filed by the petitioner, he prayed for a decree for declaration that the petitioner was entitled to enjoy and utilize 40 per cent share of the partnership firm for his warehousing and other business and that the opposite parties had no right to hinder such business. The opposite parties applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 since according to the opposite parties the deed of partnership dated July 3, 1980 contained a clause for arbitration. By the judgment and order impugned such petition of the opposite parties was allowed. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the suit was for declaration and injunction. Pleadings made in paragraphs 4, 5, 10 and 11 of the plaint as well as prayer (a) thereof was placed. It was contended that the business spoken off in the plaint was an independent business not covered by the arbitration agreement contained in the deed of partnership dated July 3, 1980. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the petitioner as the plaintiff had filed a previous suit where the opposite parties applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Such petition of the opposite parties was rejected. The rejection of such petition was challenged by the opposite parties by way of a revisional application being C.O. No. 2880 of 2011. By a judgment and order dated August 22, 2013 such revisional application was dismissed. This Hon'ble Court was pleased not to find any infirmity in the order rejecting the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment and order dated August 22, 2013 was not considered by the Trial Judge while delivering the impugned order.
(3.) ON behalf of the opposite parties it was contended that, the parties of two suits were different. The suit properties in the two suits were also different. The issues raised in the two suits were different. In the first suit in which the judgment and order dated August 22, 2013 was rendered the claim of the petitioner was based on the deed of partnership.;