- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of the court of Shri Bakhshish Singh, Subordinate Judge Second Class, Jullunder, dated March 21, 1969, dismissing the application of the appellant-company under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940) (hereinafter called " the Act " ). The case of the appellant-company was that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to repay Rs. 28,400 in prescribed instalments in terms of the hire-purchase agreement, exhibit P-1, in respect of vehicle No. PNJ-7945 ; that a sum of Rs. 16,623. 18 plus interest with effect from February 1, 1965, was outstanding against the two respondents as well as their guarantor, the third respondent; that the respondents were disputing their liability to pay the amount; that the hire-purchase agreement contained a stipulation in writing to refer all questions and matters of difference between the parties in regard to their rights, duties and obligations and their enforcement by the parties (including the failure to pay the amount claimed under the various clauses of the agreement) to the sole arbitration of Shri C. L. Vohra, Advocate, Civil Lines, Jullundur City, or his nominees ; that disputes having arisen between the parties the agreement be filed in court under Section 20 of the Act, and an order of reference to the named sole arbitrator may be made. Though the guarantor (respondent No. 3) did not contest the application, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 objected to the filing of the agreement and the making of the reference on, inter alia, the ground that the agreement between the parties had been terminated as the entire amount due from them had been paid by them by instalments and the receipts for those payments were in possession of the respondents and nothing more was due from them to the company. It was further alleged that the appellant-company had got the signatures of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on a printed paper on which the company had forged a document showing the balance due from them. On the merits of the controversy they admitted that they had purchased the truck in question on hire-purchase basis, but claimed that the entire amount due under the hire-purchase agreement had been paid out and nothing remained due from them. The hire-purchase agreement including the arbitration clause therein having been admitted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the claim for reference to arbitration not having been contested by respondent No. 3, the trial court should, in my opinion, have straightaway allowed the application under Section 20 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge did not adopt that straightforward course, but framed the two issues about there being sufficient cause for not referring the matter to arbitration and about the document exhibit P-2 (an acknowledgment of the debt, dated January 31, 1965), being a forged document and about the effect thereof. The learned judge recorded evidence on the two issues including that of an expert and held that the written acknowledgment, exhibit P-2, was a forged document and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had paid out the entire amount due under the hire-purchase agreement. On that short ground he dismissed the application of the appellant-company.
(2.) THIS appeal has been contested by respondent No. 2. Mr. Krishan Lal Kapur, the learned counsel appearing for him, has not seriously contested the proposition that the order of the trial court cannot be upheld inasmuch as the court below had no jurisdiction at all to enter into or decide the question relating to the merits of the claim of the company while dealing with an application under Section 20 of the Act. He has, however, vehemently submitted that I should dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal under Section 20 has become infructuous because of the company having gone into liquidation. The application under Section 20 was presented to the trial court on June 23, 1967, and was dismissed on March 21, 1969. This appeal was preferred on September 3, 1969, when a petition for winding up of the company (C. O. No. 26 of 1969) had already been filed in this court on June 9, 1969. The appeal was admitted on October 27, 1969.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the company was ordered to be wound up on January 9, 1970. The official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as the liquidator of the company by the same order.;