HINDUSTHAN ADVERTISING CORPORATION Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS; application is directed against order No. 45 dated 19th June, 1987 passed by the learned Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit Mo. 236 of 1985. The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the plaintiff on the basis of an agreement dated 10th of August, 1966 erected steel-poles and kiosks on different roadsides belonging to the defendants for displaying advertisements on behalf of its customers on payment of an agreed amount of charge to the defendants. The opposite parties/defendants removed a number of steel-poles and kiosks without notice to the petitioner/plaintiff giving rise to certain dispute which the plaintiff wanted to refer to arbitration on the basis of clause 20 of the agreement. The defendants / opposite parties having failed to make any of such reference in compliance with the notice served by the plaintiff dated 10th of June, 1985, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia, praying for filing of the said agreement. The said application gave rise to the aforesaid Title Suit. In the said application the plaintiffs made out a case of. having suffered losses to the tune of Rs. 3,89,280/ -. The defendants opposite parties raised an objection as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff whereupon two issues were framed by the learned trial Judge regarding the valuation of the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the valuation of the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the; court. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge accepted the objection raised on behalf of the defendants/opposite parties and found that the subject matter of dispute was valued at Rs. 3,89,280/- and as such beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court arid upon such finding directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court.

(3.) IN the present Revisional application Mr. Dutta, appearing on behalf of the defendants/opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Revisional application. According to Mr. Dutta the impugned order amounts to refusal to file an arbitration agreement within the meaning of clause 4 sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act and as such is appealable. Mr. Dey, appearing in support of the application, has, however, tried to contend that the refusal being not on merit cannot be said to attract the aforesaid statutory provision for appeal and the Revisional application is maintainable.