BANSI LAL Vs. HARYANA FINANCE PT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON may 17, 1966, Bansi Lal, petitioner herein, brought a suit in the court of the District Judge, Jammu, against the respondent, Messrs Haryana Finance Pt. Ltd. for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to hand over a new Tata Mercedes Bens chassis No. 312/42 type in terms of the hire purchase agreement entered into between the parties on June 3o, 1965. The District Judge transferred the suit for disposal in accordance with law to the Sub Judge (A. D. M.) Jammu. On service of the summons one respondent made an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for stay of the suit and reference of the matters in dispute to S. Charanjit Singh, Advocate, Delhi, the arbitrator designated in the arbitration clause contained in the aforesaid agreement dated June 3o, 1965. The petitioner thereupon made an application under S. 33 of the Act challenging the validity of the arbitration agreement. The trial court thereupon framed the following issues: -

(2.) THE parties availed of the opportunity allowed to them to adduce evidence in respect of the aforesaid issues, on a consideration where of the trial court while holding that the petitioner herein was not estopped from raising the plea of the invalidity of the agreement, found that the agreement was not invalid. It accordingly passed an order dated January 31, 1971, staying the suit and referring the matters in controversy between the parties for arbitration to the designated arbitrator. Dissatisfied with this order the petitioner herein preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Jammu, which came to be heard by the Addl. District Judge, Jammu, who upheld the order passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has come up in revision to this court.

(3.) APPEARING in support of the revision, Mr. J. P. Singh has while making a futile attempt to raise some points which were not taken by the petitioner in the objections filed by him to the respondents aforesaid application for stay of the suit and reference of the matters in dispute to arbitration urged that the trial court could only stay the aforesaid suit and not refer the matters in dispute between the parties to arbitration. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Gujrat High Court in Chailal. Vs. Amtatlal, AIR 1963 Gujrat 141, where it was observed: