ASOKAN Vs. JAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT are the revision petitioners. The revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge refusing to refer the dispute for arbitration. The suit is filed by the respondent -plaintiff for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants respondents 1 and 2 from purchasing any generator or other new assets using the partnership funds without the written consent of the plaintiff as partner of the firm. The suit also prays inter alia for rendering accounts.

(2.) THE objection of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner in the I.A. to the maintainability of the suit is based on Clause 20 of the partnership agreement which reads as follows : "Disputes if any and questions in connection with this partnership or this deed, arising between the parties shall be settled by resort to arbitration." The learned Subordinate Judge construed Clause 20 as applying only to disputes connected with the partnership or interpretation of the partnership document and the relief sought for do not come under Clause 20.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent -plaintiff submits that he wants to safeguard the interest of the property of the firm and it is essential that interim orders should be obtained. Section 9 of the Act enables a party to seek for interim orders. The respondent -plaintiff has not so far taken steps to move for an interim order. It is further pointed out that the proper court to seek for such an order would be a court which comes within the definition of Section 2(e) of the Act. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to move the appropriate court for an appropriate relief under Section 9 of the Act. If any such application is filed, the concerned court will dispose of the same as early as possible. With the above observations and direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.