GOURANGA CHANDRA PAUL Vs. BIJOY KRISHNA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's revision against the orders dated 21-12-89, 11-1-90 and 16-2-90 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge-1, Silchar.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the relevant facts for appreciation of the question raised, are that the opposite party No.1 had filed Money Suit No.4/ 81 in the Court of Assistant District Judge No.1, Silchar for rendition of accounts, etc. against the present petitioner, who was also a defendant with others. The petitioner appeared and submitted that in the agreement between the parties, there was an arbitration clause and that the disputes had to be referred by the parties for arbitration, and that the proceeding in Money Suit No.4/81 had to be stayed. By order dated 23-2-81 the learned trial court had accepted the submission for the present petitioner and had stayed further proceedings which order, it appears, was later vacated. However, the parties had made reference to the arbitrators. Meanwhile, the petitioner had filed petition for appointment of receiver and for attachment before judgment on which some orders had been made against which petitions were filed in this court. The learned trial court at one stage had by order dated 31-1-87 refused stay of the proceedings, prayed for, by the defendant No.3 the present petitioner. There was an appeal which was Misc. Appeal No.2/87 in which the learned District Judge, Silchar by order dated 10-4-87 ordered stay of further proceedings in Money Suit No.4/81 for such period the court below found necessary for the purpose of arbitration. The prayer for appointment of receiver and attachment before judgment was however to be considered by the court below after hearing the parties. Against this order there was a revision in this court which was Civil Revision No.219/ 87 and in its Misc. Case No.194/ 87; this court on 17-7-87 directed that " pending hearing of the show cause, all further proceedings in Money Suit No.4/81 are stayed and also the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 10-4-87 is stayed". This court by order dated 16-11-89 decided the Civil Revision Nos. 195 and 219 of 1987 with the direction as below :

(3.) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner has come to this Court and Sri N.M.Lahiri, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, has submitted that the order of stay dated 17-7-87 was in respect of the proceedings in Money Suit No.4/81 and had nothing to do with the proceedings before the arbitrator which had been seized of the matter on reference by the parties in pursuance of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, and in so far as the Money Suit No.4/81 was concerned for that reason its proceedings were required to be stayed in pursuance of the provisions of S.34 of the Arbitration Act. In short the stay order dated 17-7-87 could not have and in fact did not have any effect on the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and consequently the view taken by the trial Court that the award having been made on 7-9-87 could not stand in the eye of law, was erroneous.