PATHERYA,J. - (1.) The only reason why FMAT 733 of 2017 and CAN 6147 of 2017 were directed to appear as "To be mentioned" as from the endorsement of item no. 1 it appears that FMAT 733 of 2017 is defective. From a perusal of the said Stamp Reporter's report it is though defective can be rectified. Section 5 being CAN 6147 of 2017 can also be considered on notice served on the other side but on a perusal of the order itself under appeal dated 15th May, 2017 it appears that Title Suit No. 571 of 2016 was filed for the following reliefs: "a) For a declaration that the various papers and documents, printed and blank about 75/80 in numbers and 25 blank cheques drawn from S.B. A/c No. 20065206190 of the Plaintiff with SBI Ghatakpur Branch, signed by the plaintiff at the time of obtaining loan are all invalid and cannot be used legally and are all sham and colorable and can be used fraudulently to make unconscionable gain or profit and that the Plaintiff is entitled to run and possess the suit vehicle bearing Police Registration No. WB-19G- 5119 and the Defendant or their men have no right to forcibly sieze the said suit Vehicle except by due process of Law. b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant their men, agents and associates from utilizing the various papers and documents, printed and blank, about 75/80 in numbers and 25 blank cheques drawn from S.B. A/c. 20065206190 of the plaintiff with SBI Ghatakpur Branch, signed by the plaintiff at the time of taking loan and converting the same into colorable documents and/or from seizing and/or interfering with the peaceful running and possession of the suit vehicle being Police Registration No. WB-19G- 5119 except by due process of Law. c) Temporary injunction with ad-interim order in terms of prayer (b) above. d) For other relief that the plaintiff may be found entitled to in law and in equity."
(2.) From a perusal of paragraph 2 of the plaint it appears that the plaintiff/appellant herein has averred that there is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. It has also been averred that the plaintiff agreed to structure the installments for a period of 60 months the defendant unilaterally fixed the said schedule of repayment for 47 months. Therefore the term "agreed" connotes that there is an agreement between the parties namely plaintiff and defendant.
(3.) In Title Suit No. 571 of 2016 an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff. The defendant filed an application under sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said petition filed by the defendant under the 1996, Act, was heard and while the contention of the parties was considered the Court below in the order dated 15.5.2017 has categorically stated that:- " prima facie the plaintiff had admitted that he put signatures on the printed form which was subsequently converted to Hire Purchase agreement which consists of arbitration clause. The plaintiff also knows that those documents were required for processing his loan. From the copy of the Loan Agreement, it appears that clause 29 of the same bears the Arbitration Clause in printed manner with bold heading distinctly.";