DARSHAN LAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by Darsban Lal defendant against the order dated 18-10-1973 of Sub-Judge 1st Class Jagadhri, whereby be directed that the plaintiff shall he entitled to visit the factory in possession of the defendants along with the Local Commissioner and this would not amount to disclosing the business secrets of the defendants to the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of this case are that Om Parkash plaintiff-respondent is owner of a metal manufacturing factory situated at Jagadhri and the leased out the same to the defendants for a period of five years with effect from 1.9.1961 and this lease period expired on 31-8-1973. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants did not deliver possession of this factory to him. It is alleged that the defendants dismantled this factory in October, 1973, and were trying to remove the Tin sheds. He, therefore, filed suit for a perpetual injunction against the defendant to restrain them from dismantling any part of the factory or making any structural change in any part of the building or removing any machinery equipments or part of the same. He also made an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the spot and report about the dismantling of any machinery or building by the defendants or any other change made by them in the premises.

(3.) The defendants in their reply contested this application. They pleaded that the plaintiff should not be permitted to accompany the Local Commissioner as he would know the secrets of the business of the defendants and the Local Commissioner may be ordered to make the inspection alone by taking some Mechanical Engineer with him. Another objection was taken that according to the terms of the agreement dated 1-9-1966 if any dispute afore between the parties with respect to the interpretation or any other matter relating to the said deed, it would be got settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act and, therefore, the natter should be referred to the Arbitrator to decide this point. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the objection of the defendants that the plaintiff should not accompany the Local Commissioner when he would visit the factory is without any substance and he rejected the same and ordered that the plaintiff shall be entitled to visit the factory alongwith the Local Commissioner. As regards the objection under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it was held that this point needs to be considered separately if and when urged by the defendants. The impugned order was passed on 18-10-1973. In view of these observations made by the Subordinate Judge in his order, a separate application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act was filed on 23.10.1973. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed this revision petition against this order.