Sudhamay Basu, J. - (1.) THIS Rule relates to an order dated the 24th of June, 1976 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 8th court. Alipore in Title Appeal No. 1048 of 1975 setting aside the order No. 8 dated the 1st of Dec. 1975 passed by the Munsiff, 2nd court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 487 of 1975.
(2.) IT appears that the Opposite Party No. 1, Shalimar Tar Products (1935 Limited) filed a Title Suit (No. 487 of 1975), inter alia, for injunction on the basis of a written agreement entered into by and between the petitioners and opposite party No. 1. Clause 16 of the agreement which contains an arbitration clause is as follows: "All disputes and differences between the parties arising out of this agreement over the meaning, construction or import thereof or the right and liability of the party hereunder shall be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act." The petitioners were the contractors for certain work and were impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in that suit were the dismissed officers of Shalimar Tar Products (1935 Limited) who later on joined the petitioners as employees. The petitioners entered appearance but before taking any steps in the suit filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit. The learned Munsiff after hearing the parties granted a stay as he found that the scope of the arbitration clause covered the subject-matter of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore, however, set aside that order mainly on the ground that the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not parties to the arbitration agreement and even if a stay was granted so far as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned the plaintiff may have to proceed against the defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The learned Judge thought that there was no reason why the plaintiff should be asked to wait as against defendants Nos. 3 and 4 unnecessarily till the suit remained stayed. He also thought that a suit could not be stayed piecemeal. The said order of the appeal court is challenged in this revisional application.
(3.) MR. John, the learned advocate appearing in support of the rule, mainly contended that the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were mere employees and the main cause of action for injunction was against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In this connection he relied on a decision of this court (Satyendra Nath Mitra v. Union of India). In that case a suit was filed against the Union of India and one Uma Shankar General Manager of Calcutta Telephones for breach of contract in wrongfully disconnecting the telephone service of the plaintiff who was a Solicitor of this court. The cause of action against the defendant Uma Shankar was one for damages. On an application being filed for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act Mullick, J. granted stay of the suit as against the Union of India but no stay was granted against the other defendant. MR. John on the basis of the said decision submitted that in the present case also two of the defendants were employees of the other defendant just as the General Manager was an employee of the Union of India. If a stay can be granted against some of the parties the question of piecemeal stay does not at all handicap the court.;