Ashok Bhan, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of civil revision petitions No. 823 to 832, 586 to 598 and 605 to 617 of 1988, which arise between the parties on the same set of facts giving rise to common questions of law and fact. The facts being taken from briefly stated the facts are : Sutlej Land Finance Private Limited Financiers and Transporters with their registered office at Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents") filed through its director Shri Ajit Singh Deogan a petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against Hoshiarpur Azad Transport Company Limited. Hoshi -arpur, through its general manager (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") for reference of the dispute which had arisen between the parties to the sole arbitrator S. Avtar Manmohanjit Singh, advocate, Jalandhar. It was alleged that the petitioner had hired bus No. PNH -3587, T.D. Jai Chand Bhasin v. Union of India : AIR 1983 Delhi 508 1968 engine No. 312 -97 -800 -1016, chassis No. 342 -050 -860 -6460 on hire purchase basis from respondents, vide hire purchase agreement dated December 19, 1980, that Baba Ram Singh respondent No. 2 stood guarantee for the petitioner. The petitioners were to make payment in monthly instalments as entered in the hire purchase agreement and according to Clause 22 of the said agreement, the disputes and differences between the parties, if any, were to be referred to the sole arbitrator S. Avtar Mohinderjit Singh, advocate, Jalandhar; that the petitioner failed to carry out his part of the agreement while the respondent was throughout ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
(2.) THE petition was contested by the petitioner only. Respondent No. 2 did not contest the same despite service and suffered ex parte proceedings to be taken against him. The petitioner denied that it had purchased any vehicle on hire purchase from the respondent or agreed to pay the amount in instalments. It is stated that the alleged agreement is a forged and fabricated document and that the same was brought into existence by respondent No. 2 who was the managing director of the petitioner -company and was one of the close relations of the general manager of the respondent -company ; that the hire purchase agreement, if any, was without consideration ; no dispute had arisen between the parties and, therefore, it was not liable to be referred for arbitration to the arbitrator. The trial court, vide its order dated March 29, 1984, allowed the petition and referred the dispute to the said arbitrator. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was accepted on August 23, 1985. The order of the trial court dated March 29, 1984, was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court with a direction to recast the issues arising from the pleadings of the parties and then re -decide the matter afresh on the merits after affording proper opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. After remand, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent executed hire purchase agreement in favour of the petitioner ? DPA (2) Whether the matter is liable to be referred to the arbitrator ? DPA (3) Relief.
(3.) THE parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence in support of the issues. The trial court decided both the issues in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. The petition under Section 20 of the Act was allowed and the disputes and differences between the parties were referred to the sole arbitrator S. Avtar Mohinderjit Singh, advocate, Jalandhar , for adjudication. An appeal was carried against this order, which was rejected. The order of the trial court referring the dispute to the sole arbitrator was upheld. The present petition has been filed impugning the orders of the courts below referring the dispute for adjudication to the arbitrator.;