- (1.) THIS civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20/9/2007 passed by District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (in short the Act of 1996) has been dismissed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It was inter alia contended that dispute has been raised before the sole Arbitrator wherein M/s. Chandra Engineers and Union of India are parties and Mr. S.C. Keswani and Mr. N.L. Bajaj, partners of the firm M/s. Chandra Engineers have expired but without taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner learned Arbitrator is bent upon to decide the arbitration matter. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned Arbitrator is taking steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of two deceased partners M/s. Chandra Engineers firm. It was then submitted that issue no.12 in this regard has been framed by the learned Arbitrator which is yet to be decided. It was next contended that prayer of the petitioner is beyond the scope of section 9 of the Act of 1996. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It is not disputed that matter is pending before the Arbitrator wherein the issue raised by the petitioner is yet to be decided, otherwise also the relief sought by the petitioner does not come within the purview of section 9 of the Act of 1996. Therefore, this revision petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, this revision petition along with stay application is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. ;