MANOJ RANJAN PATNAIK Vs. SANGRAM KESHARI PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Miscellaneous Appeals are interlinked and the parties are same. Therefore, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) IN Misc. Appeal No. 631 of 1992 the order dated 29 -8 -1992 passed in 0. S. No. 129 of 1992 staying the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is under challenge. In Misc. Appeal No. 632,of 1992 the order dated 29 -8 -1992 passed in Misc. Case. No. 239 of 1992 arising out of OS No. 129 of 1992 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC is under challenge.

(3.) DURING pendency of the suit plaintiffs also filed an application praying for restraining the defendants from carrying on the business in the premises of the dissolved firm which was registered as Misc. Case No. 239 of 1992. The defendants on notice filed an application for stay of the suit stating that the suit should be stayed in view of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act there being an arbitration clause (Clause - -13) in the agreement between the parties. By order dated 29 -8 -1992 the trial Court came to the conclusion that since the parties had agreed to arbitrate the matter, the suit should not proceed and, therefore, stayed the further proceedings of the suit. In Misc. Case No. 239 of 1992 filed under, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC trial Court came to the conclusion that since the suit cannot proceed the application for injunction which has been filed in the suit cannot proceed,