VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) PRESENT revision petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehabad dismissing the application moved under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) moved by the petitioners.
(2.) A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent being the legal representative of late Banwari Lal who was one of the partners of M/s Sharda Ginning Pressing and Oil Mills along with Bhola Ram son of Chandu Lal, Smt. Nirmal Garg wife of Rattan Chand son of Bhola Ram, Saroj Garg wife of Subhash Chand son of Bhola Ram and Smt. Sharda Garg wife of Parkash son of Bhola Ram. The partnership deed was dated 1.4.1991. Banwari Lal died on 7.11.2002 thereby resulting in dissolution of firm M/s Sharda Ginning Pressing and Oil Mills under Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act. In the suit, the plaintiff had claimed a relief of dissolution of firm and for separate possession by way of partition of 1/4th share of movable and immovable property and for rendition of account of partnership firm after settlement of account. On notice having been given the defendants filed an application under Section 8 of the Act seeking stay of the proceedings in the suit for referring the matter to the Arbitrator under Clause 15 of the Partnership Deed which reads as under: "Clause No. 15. That in case of any dispute among the parties with regard to the interpretation of this deed or any other matter relating to the affairs of the firm the same shall be referred to an arbitrator agreed upon among the parties in accordance with the provision of the Indian Arbitration Act." The said application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent on the plea that the present suit has been filed for dissolution of firm and separate possession by way of partition and rendition of account of defendant No. 1 by defendants No. 2 to 5 and against defendants No. 6 and 7 who were not party to the partnership deed dated 1.4.1991. It was also claimed that the matter was not covered under the alleged arbitration clause. It was also claimed by the plaintiffs in reply to the application that the partnership deed dated 1.4.1991 came to an end with the death of Banwari Lal and accordingly the arbitration clause also ceased to exist. It was also claimed that M/s Sharda Ginning Pressing and Oil Mills was not a registered firm as such the matter could not be referred to arbitration and the provisions of Section 8 of the Act were not attracted to the facts of the case. It was also claimed that the matter involved in the present suit could only be decided by the Civil Court and there was no need to refer the matter to the Arbitrator. It was also claimed that as the petitioners had sought adjournment for filing the written statement, they were estopped from raising the plea of referring the matter to the Arbitrator. No reply was filed on behalf of the defendants No. 6 and 7 in the suit as they had already filed written statement on 25.1.2005. In support of the application the petitioners placed reliance on the law laid down in Parampal Singh v. Punjab State Warehouse Corporation, Chandigarh and others, 1999(4) RCR(Civil) 219 (P&H) : 2000(1) Punjab Law Reporter 347, Union of India v. Smt. Lajwant Kaur, 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 124, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Prem Chand, 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 80 : 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 659, Ashokan v. Jayan, 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 168, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Pink City Mid Way Petroleum, 2003(3) RCR(Civil) 686 (SC) : 2004 ICC 492, P. Anand Gajapati Raju and others v. PVG Raju (dead) and others, 2000(4) SCC 539.
(3.) ON the other hand the plaintiff-respondent contended that as the suit is for dissolution of firm and for rendition of account of defendant No. 1 by defendants No. 2 to 5 the same could only be decided by the Civil Court and not by the Arbitrator. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff further contended that defendants No. 6 and 7 were not party to the agreement of partnership dated 1.4.1991 and therefore, the matter could not be referred to the arbitration and in support of his contention reliance was placed on the law laid down in Sukanya Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya and other, 2003(3) RCR(Civil) 647 (SC) : 2004(1) RCJ 5, M/s Makar Cotton Mills v. Harminder Singh, 2001(1) Civil and Rent Judicial Reports 428, H.C. Chopra v. V.C. Mehra, 1999(4) RCR(Civil) 497, Additional Chief Engineer and others v. M/s S.P. Chopra and Company and others, 2000(3) RCR(Civil) 76, Om Parkash v. M/s Usha Rani, 2002(1) RCR(Civil) 437, M/s Jagdish Rai and others v. Jagdish Raj and others, 2002(4) RCR 379, Smt. Sudershan Chopra v. Company Law Board, 2003(3) RCR(Civil) 183; Narender Singh Randhava and others v. Hardyal Singh Dhillon and others, 1985(2) PLR 422.;