DIRAVIA NADAR Vs. SHANMUGHASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order, dated 9.3.1990 in O.P. No. 185 of 1987, Sub Court, Tuticorin is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by respondents 1 and 2 in that proceedings. Respondents 1 to 12 in this Civil Revision Petition are petitioners 2 to 13 therein. Respondents 3 to 8 in that proceedings are respondents 13 to 18 in this Civil Revision Petition. THE order under challenge substitutes one Arumuga Nadar as an arbitrator in the place of one Palani Nadar, since deceased who was one of the appointed arbitrators.

(2.) I heard Mr. S. Gopalaratnam, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. R. Ganesan, learned counsel on record for the petitioners and Mr. D. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 12 in this Civil Revision Petition. A few facts have to be necessarily stated before the dispute between the parties could be properly understood. There is an arbitration agreement, dated 6.7.1977. One Palpandia Nadar, who is no more and whose legal representatives are petitioners 2 to 13 in O.P. No. 185 of 1987 and respondents 1 and 2 in that proceeding are parties to that agreement. Seven named individuals were appointed as arbitrators to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties, above referred to. I am not entering into the details of the dispute, which was referred to the arbitrators, because it may not be necessary for this Court to decide the issue, arising in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents 1 to 12 also contended that the non-joining of the other sharers of the property will not in any way invalidate the arbitration agreement itself and that therefore there would be no difficulty in continuing the reference even in the second round. In this context, learned counsel argued that all parties need not sign the arbitration agreement for a valid reference and that therefore even in the absence of the other sharers, the reference in this case under the arbitration agreement has to be declared as valid.