MAHENDRA LAL KUSHIARY Vs. GURDEYAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision on the following facts. There was a partnership business between one Mahendra Lal Kushiary, the present petitioner, and one Gobinda Chandra Chakravarty for the purpose of running a motor business in the name and style of Sarju Motor Company. Later on Gurdeyal Singh, opposite party, agreed to join the partnership business in place of Gobinda Chandra Chakravarty, and a deed of agreement dated 17-3-1948, was executed by the present opposite party. One of the conditions of the agreement was that in case of any dispute or difference between the parties the matter would be referred to arbitration. Subsequently, difference arose between the parties and the petitioner Mahendra Lal Kushiary sent a notice to the applicant on 17-1-1950 dissolving the partnership, and later on he also filed a title suit No. 44 of 1950 in the Court of the Munsif, Hazaribagh Gurdeyal Singh, the opposite party filed an application before the learned Subordinate Judge for referring the matter in dispute to arbitration under the provision of Sec. 8, Arbitration Act, and the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application on hearing the parties, and decided to refer the matter to arbitration, and the parties were called upon to suggest names of arbitrators within a time fixed by the Court, and the suit pending before the learned Munsif was stayed.

(2.) The present petitioner having felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge referring the matter in dispute to arbitration filed an application in revision in this Court (Civil Revision No. 496 of 1950), This application, however, was dismissed on 3-8-1950. Having failed in this Court, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 151, Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, for reviewing the order of 12-7-1950, sending the matter to arbitration. The ground of review made out in the application was that as the partnership consisting of the petitioner and the opposite party was not a registered partnership under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Sec. 69 of that Act was a bar to the application for sending the matter in dispute to arbitration, and that, therefore, the order of 12-7-1950, passed by the Court below was without jurisdiction. This application in review has been dismissed by the Court below and hence this application in revision to this Court.

(3.) It has been argued, as was argued in the Court below, that Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act was a bar to the application of the opposite party for sending the matter in dispute to arbitration and the order sending the same to arbitration was without jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has argued, firstly, that in view of the order in Civil Revision No. 496 of 1950 of this Court no such application for review of the order of the Court below, dated 12-7-1910, lay in the Court below, and, secondly, that Sec. 69 of the Indian Partnership Act has no application to the facts of the present case.