RAKESH BALA ANEJA Vs. SUSHIL BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case on 23.11.2010 following order was passed :

(2.) RESPONDENT nos. 2 to 4 i.e. arbitrator and two witnesses of the agreement (alleged agreement) dated 5.1.1983 have not yet been served in appeal. However, Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant states that it is not necessary to take fresh steps to serve them as they were also defendants along with the appellant and this appeal is directed against judgment and decree through which trial court has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on the application of defendant respondent no.1 represented by Sri Triveni Shankar, learned counsel.

(3.) SRI Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant wanted to address the Court on the question of genuineness or otherwise of the agreement dated 5.1.1983. However, we did not permit him to raise the arguments as that would have been beyond the scope of this appeal. The Hon. Supreme Court observed that: