ARUN KUMAR GOEL,J - (1.) This revision at the instance of State is directed against the judgment passed by Shri J. N, Barowalia, Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1989, dated 29 -1 -1996. By means of impugned judgment, the lower appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the Sub -Judge Court No. 3, Mandi, dated 29 -3 -1989 and consequently dismissed the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, filed on behalf of the present petitioners.
(2.) Brief facts of the case out of which this revision has arisen are that a suit for injunction was filed by the respondent against the petitioners. Before filing their written statement, the petitioners filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of suit on the plea that matter was referable for arbitration in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Further facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioners auctioned lot No. 2 of 1963 -64 of standing ˜Cheel trees, situated in Sayuri Forest of Mandi Forest Division in an open auction held in Mandi in 1963 A fixed deposit receipt in the sum of Rs. 15,000 as security was pledged with the Conservator of forest, Chamba, Circle Chamba by the respondent According to the respondent, this receipt of security was liable to be released after the close of the work in question. According to the respondent, since the petitioners have failed to release the amount in question, as such prayer for mandatory injunction by way of direction to the petitioners to release the said security receipt in favour of the respondent or any other receipt issued by the bank in lieu and renewal thereof lying with the petitioners in connection with the contract in question was prayed for.
(3.) An agreement dated 8 -2 -1964 was entered into between the Himachal Pradesh Government as well as the respondent firm. In terms of the said agreement, the respondent firm exploited the forest and completed the work within the stipulated period which was upto 31 -12 -1964. In the agreement in question amongst other clauses, there is Clause 29 as well as 39 to which reference has been made by both the courts below. For the purpose of present case. Clause 29 is material which is reproduced herein below : - "Clause 29. -That if any question, difference or subject on whatsoever shall arise between the parties to these presents or their respective representatives or between one of the parties hereto and the representatives of the other of them touching these presents or any clause or thing herein contained or the construction thereof or as in any matter to any way connected with or arising out of these presents or the operation thereof or the rights, duties, or liabilities of either parties then save in so far as the decision of any such question or difference or part thereof is already hereinbefore otherwise provided for and has been so decided, every such question, difference or objection including any question or difference as regards whether the decision of any particular matter has been otherwise provided for and/or whether it has been finally decided accordingly failing either of which whether the Arbitrator referred to below should decide it or whether the contract hereinbefore contained should be terminated or has been duly terminated and as regards rights and obligations of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration to the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, District Chamba or should he be unable or unwilling to not, to such, Assistant as the said D. C. Chamba shall appoint as sole arbitrator and his decision shall be final and binding and where the matter involves a claim for or the payment or recovery or deduction of money only the amount, if any, awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the matter so referred. -;