ESCORTS FINANCE LIMITED Vs. DHARAMBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 4.8.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jind, whereby the application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act') for referring the matter to the Arbitrator has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Finance Company and the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner for financing of a tractor under the loan-cum-hypothecation-cum-guarantee agreement (hereinafter called the agreement) on 30.9.2002. The agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and as per the agreement the petitioner financed the respondent to the extent of Rs. 2,23,000/-. As per Clause 11 of the agreement it was agreed between the parties that in the event of any difference or dispute between the patties then the matter shall be referred to an Arbitrator who shall constitute the Arbitral Tribunal. Clause 11 of the Agreement is reproduced as under:-

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 did not pay the installments in time and when a demand was raised then the respondent filed a civil suit before the trial Court. The petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act praying therein that as per the Agreement the matter is to decided by an Arbitrator and, therefore, the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to try this case and the matter should be referred to an Arbitrator. Reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff wherein it was averred that the plaintiff never signed any Agreement and that the alleged signatures on the Agreement are not that of the plaintiff and, hence, the matter cannot be referred to the Arbitrator and it is the civil Court which will have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. The trial Court vide its impugned order dismissed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner and held that as the plaintiff has denied the execution of the Agreement and as it cannot be decided at this stage as to whether the plaintiff/respondent has in fact signed the same or not, therefore, the civil Court at Jind would have the jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.