M.M.DUTT, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS Rule raises a short but interesting point. Before, however, we indicate the point, it is necessary to state the facts of the case which lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner has instituted a suit being Suit No. 2380 of 1974 in the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta against the opposite party No. 1, Gopalka Auto Finance, for the realisation of the sum of Rs. 2,135/- alleged to have been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party No. 1 in excess of the amount due under the hire purchase agreement entered into by the parties in connection with financing a vehicle. The opposite party No. 1 entered appearance in the said suit and filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereafter referred to as 'the Act', praying for the stay of the said suit alleging, inter alia, that the hire purchase agreement contained an arbitration clause, whereby the parties had agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration. The learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta, after hearing the parties, allowed the said application under Section 34 of the Act and stayed the suit by his order dated November 19, 1976.
(3.) THEREAFTER, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33 of the Act before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, challenging the existence and genuineness of the alleged agreement and characterising the same as a piece of fraud and forgery. The application under Section 33 was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No.235 of 1977. The said Misc. Case, on transfer, eventually came up for hearing before the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta.;