ASHOK KUMAR Vs. FAQIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of a suit filed on 14th December, 1953, by the present petitioner. On the same date he filed an application under section 20(b) of the Civil Procedure Code for permission to sue the defendants at Delhi. The application was dismissed by the trial court and the impugned order, for the reasons given therein, did not reverse the order of the trial court and it was held by the Additional District Judge that the suit was such that it should not be allowed to be continued in Delhi.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised before me it may be noticed that the petitioner Ashok Kumar filed the suit disclosing through the pedigree-table given in paragraph 2 of the plaint that he was the son of defendant No. 5 Munshi Ram and that defendants, 3, 4 and 5 were his real brothers. Defendant No. 1 Faqir Chand belonged to the other branch of the family and so did his brother Banwari Lal defendant No. 2. The plaintiff came to court with the allegations that he was a member of the coparcenary and Munshi Ram also being its member had been running with the joint family funds a business under the name and style of "Munshi Ram B.Sc." It was further urged that Munshi Ram having fallen under the influence of his natural father Faqir Chand and his uncle Banwari Lal, had begun to give away large sums of money to them without the consent or knowledge of his sons who formed the joint Hindu family with him. In paragraph 7 of the plaint it was alleged that in October, 1946, defendants Faqir Chand and Banwari Lal had followed Munshi Ram to Delhi and in consequence of a plot hatched there on 30th October, 1946, a document had been signed which purported to be an agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration and that in terms of that document Shri Prem Nath Aggarwal, Advocate of Ferozepur, was appointed the sole arbitrator. It was pointed out that the alleged agreement to refer to arbitration was a queer document in as much as it authorised the arbitrator to determine the matters in controversy even in the absence of the other party. In paragraph 8 it was stated that the arbitrator made the award and some of the details of the award were given. In paragraph 10 the plaintiff stated that the award made by the sole arbitrator was made the rule of the court by a Sub- Judge First Class, Ferozepore. In paragraph 12 the plaintiff disclosed that Munshi Ram had paid same instalments in terms of the award which had been made into a decree, In paragraph 13 of the plaint details of the properties which were being attached and brought to sale were given. All these properties were in Ferozepore.

(3.) The plaintiff-petitioner's right to sue is visible from the averments contained in paragraphs 14 and 16 of the plaint. He alleged that he was a coparcener and as such had asked the defendants many times to refrain from executing the decree obtained fraudulently and collusively as the same was not binding on the joint Hindu family of which the plaintiff was a member.