SHYAM BIHARI SHARMA Vs. RAJESH DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. S. Rakhra, J. This is a revision under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and order dated 14-10-2003 passed by the District Judge, Agra in Misc. Case No. 310 of 1999 Rajesh Dutt Sharma v. Bulaki Singh and others, whereby application No. 62-C of the appellant revisionist made under Section 151, 152 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) HEARD Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri Rishi Chadha for opposite party No. 7. The opposite party No. 1, who is applicant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is the main contesting party, has not put in appearance despite the service of notice. Perused the record.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. I agree that the impugned order would occasion failure of justice and the District Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. Once he had taken in decision that the interest of the revisionist was to be protected during the pendency of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration [and Conciliation (sic)] Act, 1996, then he ought to have passed consequential order to see that the protection was in fact available to the revisionist. The prayer was with regard to five flats but the order dated 29-5-2000 in its operative portion refers to 8 flats without discussing the identity thereof.