Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The plaintiff in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs has preferred the instant revisional application. The reliefs claimed in the said suit are as follows: "(a) for a decreed of declaration that the plaintiff is one of the lessee along with the defendant in respect of the scheduled property without any interruption of the defendant. (b) for declaration that the plaintiff has every right in the scheduled property and business without any obstruction or interference from, the defendant. (c) a decree for dissolution of a partnership firm namely carrying on its business from the scheduled property. (d) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to furnish true and faithful accounts of all the profit and share of capital, interest, salary to the plaintiff from 01.08.2016 to 31.03.2018 and to pay the share of the plaintiff as may be ascertained by the Learned Court. (e) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing or interfering to the free access of the plaintiff or his agents in the scheduled property and his share of profits in the business. (f) Receiver (g) Commissioner (h) Any other order and/or orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper."
(2.) By the impugned order, the trial court allowed an application filed by the defendant/opposite party for reference of the suit to arbitration under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act").
(3.) The petitioner submits that the subject-matter of the suit is not confined to the subject-matter of the arbitration clause in the partnership deed between the parties but also relates to disputes regarding the rights of the parties as joint lessees in respect of the suit property.;