RAGHUNANDAN SAO Vs. NARAIN SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, challenging an order dated the 7th of April, 1960, passed In Title Partition Suit No. 46 of 1959, filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge has stayed the hearing of the suit until an award is filed by the arbitrators appointed under a deed of agreement, dated the 22nd of September, 1957.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these : THE plaintiffs have filed the suit in question for a partition of the properties, mentioned in Schedules 1 to 4 of the plaint as joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It has been mentioned in the plaint that oft the 22nd of September, 1957, a document had been brought into existence by duping some of the plaintiffs, which document was not a genuine document, but was fabricated and void. THE document purported to be an agreement appointing some arbitrators, which was compulsorily registered, In spite of objections made by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5. According to the plaintiffs, they were not bound by the alleged deed of agreement. During the course of the proceedings in Court, the defendants filed a petition on the 12th of February, 1960, under Sections 31, 32 and 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. It was mentioned therein that an arbitration agreement dated the 22nd of September, 1957, had been executed by plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 and defendants Nos. 1 to 6, appointing certain arbitrators to settle the dispute between the parties, which agreement was later on registered. It was alleged that the present suit had been filed by the plaintiffs dishonestly, for a declaration that the agreement was void and was not binding on the plaintiffs. It was contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in view of the said arbitration agreement. It was mentioned that it was necessary, in the ends of justice, that the question of jurisdiction of the Court and of the maintainability of the suit should, first, be decided before the defendants are called upon to file a written statement. It was prayed that the suit may be stayed in the meantime. A rejoinder to the defendants' petition was filed by the plaintiffs on the 1st of March, 1960.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, the judgment and order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and it is directed that the suit should now be taken up for hearing as expeditiously as possible from the stage at which it was pending on the 7th of April, 1960. There will be no order for costs of this Court,