RAGHUBIR AGGARWAL Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is appellant in this appeal directed aginst an order dated 28.9.95 in IA 8217/94 in Civil Suit No. 3767/91. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the said IA filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and stayed the suit. The plaintiff whose suit has been stayed has filed this appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed by the appellant who claims to be a tenant in respect of the ground floor shop measuring 720 Sq. Ft. for dissolution of partnership, rendition of account etc. According to the appellant, there was a settlement between the appellant and his landlords who sued for eviction and a deed was executed on 3.2.1984 by the owners of the property (Mr. K.L. Jain and Smt. Raj Rani Jain) wherein, it is said, they recognised the appellant as a tenant of the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 100.00 . Appellant says he entered into a partnership on 2.4.79 with one Mr. Satpal, the respondents (S.P. Garg, Sulekh Chand Shiv Kumar). These five partners are said to have agreed to carry on commission business under the name M/S Jagdish Pershad Shiv Kumar Aggarwal. It is also the appellant's case that the deed provided that the business will be at the shop which is under appellant's tenancy from the owners and that the tenancy right vests in the appellant. It is said that appellant's share is 20%, that later in 1985, Mr. Satpal retired and a fresh deed of partnership was executed between the remaining 4 partners, i.e. appellant and the 3 respondents. It is said respondents were not rendering accounts and therefore appellant issued notice on 5.12.90 dissolving the firm w.e.f. 31.12.1990. The respondents did not reply but were saying that appellant had retired from the firm. On the basis since there was neither dissolution nor retirement of appellant, suit was filed for dissolution and accounts and relief for permanent injunction was also sought on the basis that the plaintiff-partner is the lessee from the owners.

(3.) The suit came up for hearing on 2.12.1991 and notice was issued in suit. In IA 12396-97/91, temporary injunction was granted restraining respondents 1 to 3 from parting with possession, or creating interest in 3rd parties. Local Commissioner was appointed to take certain action. On 24.4.92, respondents entered appearance through counsel and were directed to file written statement in 6 weeks. On 24.4.92, respondents filed vakalatnama and plaintiff's counsel was asked to supply copies of annexures to the plaint, to the defendants in 6 weeks. The Court said: