KIRTI BHUSAN SINGH Vs. DIPTI BIKASH BAHADURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wholesale remand of the case to the trial Court for taking additional evidence and then dispose it of according to law is bad. being in contravention of the specific provisions of law, as provided in Rules 27 and 28 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) It appears that the two plaintiffs, on one hand, and Kedarnath, since deceased, and his daughter, Saibalini Devi, on the other, had entered into a partnership agreement to run a restaurant in the name of Ranchi Restaurant, which is defendant No. 4. Sadanand (defendant No. 2) is the son of Kedarnath. Kirii Bhusan Singh (defendant No. 3) is the husband of defendant No. 1 and Dilip Kumar (defendant No. 5) is their son. These defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were, however no party to the agreement but the deed of partnership agreement provided that the deaths of any of the partners will not result in the dissolution of partnership but the business will be taken on by the legal representatives of the deceased partner.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for a direction upon, the defendants to file the agreement for reference to arbitrator for the purpose of dissolution of the partnership business and rendition of accounts, since there was a clause in the partnership agreement that in case of any dispute between the partners, the same would be decided by arbitrator to be selected by the parties. The application was registered as Title Suit No. 15 of 1960.