BADRI NARAYAN LALL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case raises the question whether the City Civil Court Judge has jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, staying a suit pending before him. Badri Narayan Lall instituted a suit in the City Civil Court against the Union of India and others. The disputes in the suit arise out of a contract which contains an arbitration clause. Upon the application of the Union of India and the other defendants to the suit the learned City Civil Court Judge has passed an order staying the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Plaintiff Badri Narayan has moved the High Court against this order under Section 115 C. P. C. and has obtained a rule.

(2.) ON behalf of the plaintiff it is contended that the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court Judge to pass an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, staying the suit is taken away by Section 5 (4) of the City Civil Court Act, 1953, read with item it of the first schedule and Section 2 (5) of the Act. In my opinion this contention is unsound and should be rejected.

(3.) NOW the application for stay of the pending suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is a proceeding in that suit. The City Civil Court is competent to try the suit and all proceedings in it. The ancillary proceeding in the suit for its stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is not covered by the expression "suits and proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940" in item No. 11 of the first schedule of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 read with Sections 2 (5) and 5 (2) of the Act and the City Civil Court is not debarred from trying the application.