RAJAN BAL Vs. HAJI GH QADIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of Mufti Baha -ud -Din Farooqi J. dated April 23, 1976, in arbitration application No. 27 of 1969 The relevant facts may be briefly stated.

(2.) PRAKASH Bal filed an application in this court under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring certain disputes which had arisen between him and the other partners of the firm in respect of business carried on under the name and style of Naaz Theatres. During the pendency of the arbitration application Prakash Bal died on 14 -6 -72. On 16 -6 -72 an application was filed by his widow Smt. Rajen Bal for bringing on record the legal representatives of Prakash Bal. According to this application the following are the legal representatives: -

(3.) THIS application was not opposed by the other parties to the proceedings and therefore by an order dated 24 -7 -72 the legal representatives mentioned in the said application were brought on record. Smt. Rajen Bal and her minor son, Rohit ; Bal, were impleaded as petitioners and Mrs. Anupum Pruthi and Mrs Rupum Khattan were impleaded as respondents in the arbitration application. Subsequently an application was filed by Shri Ghulam Qadir, one of the respondents in the arbitration application, for impleading Anmol Rattan as one of the legal representatives of Prakash Bal on the ground that he was the latters son by his first wife. This application was rejected by the court by order dated 1 -8 -72 on the ground that Ghulam Qadir had consented to the impleading of the persons mentioned in the application dated 16 -6 -72 filed by Mrs Rajen Bal and that he was, therefore, estopped from raising any objection subsequently against the order impleading the said persons and asking the court to implead Anmol Rattan. After the application filed by Ghulam Qadir was dismissed by the court an application was filed by Anmol Rattan himself on 12 -12 -72 for being impleaded as one of the legal representatives of Prakash Bal. In this Application he claimed that he was the son of Prakash Bal by his first wife. This application was opposed by the other legal representatives who had already been impleaded. While this application was still pending. Mrs Rajen Bal filed two applications, one dated 14 -3 -73 and the other dated 24 -5 -73. By the first application Mrs Rajen Bal sought the permission of the court to prove a will which is alleged to have been executed by Prakash Bal and according to which Prakash Bal had bequeathed his entire property in favour of Mrs Rajen Bal and Rahit Bal to the exclusion of all his other heirs. By the other application Mrs Rajen Bal sought a modification of the earlier order dated 24 -7 -72 by deleting the names of Mrs Anupum Pruthi and Mrs Rupum Khattan as the legal representatives of Prakash Bal and by making herself and Rohit Bal as the only two legal representatives of Prakash Bal. This application was opposed by the other two legal representatives, Mrs Anupum Pruthi and Mrs Rupum Khattan who had already been impleaded and also by Anmol Bal whose application for being impleaded as one of the legal representatives of Prakash Bal was still pending. The court directed Mrs Rajen Bal to lead evidence in support of her claim and also Mrs Anupum Pruthi, Mrs Rupum Khattan and Anmol Bal in support of their objections. In accordance with this direction of the court evidence was led by both the parties. After the evidence was closed and the matter came up for arguments, Mr. O. N. Tikku who was appearing for Anmol Bal conceded before the court that the application filed by Anmol Bal was liable to be dismissed in view of the order of the court dated 24 -7 -72 bringing on record the legal representatives of Prakash Bal as the court was precluded from reopening the question of substitution of legal representatives and from either recalling or modifying the said earlier order. It was further contended by the learned counsel that on the same grounds the two applications dated 14 -4 -73 and 24 -5 -73 filed by Mrs Rajen Bal for modification of the earlier order dated 24 -7 -72 were also liable to be dismissed. The learned single Judge accepted the above contention and held that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of substitution passed on 24 -7 -72 and dismissed the two applications filed by Mrs Raien Bal. It is against this order of the learned single judge that the present appeal has been filed.