MUNSHI RAM Vs. RAMAWATAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision has been directed against the order dated 25. 4. 1990, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Alwar, whereby he set aside the order dated 12. 12. 1988, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Alwar.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to this revision are that late Shri Munshi Ram predecessor of the petitioners was dealer of M/s Indo Burma Petroleum Company Ltd. in the year 1972. He was the sole owner of this petroleum pump. Later on, on account of financial problems, he took the non-petitioner Sh. Ramawatar in partnership and the partnership deed was executed "on 11. 2. 1985. In this partnership deed, there was a clause that in case of dispute between the parties, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. Later on there was a dispute between the parties, the plaintiff Shri Munshi Ram served a notice on the defendant- non-petitioner Ramawatar on 17. 9. 1986, but the defendant did not reply the same. THE plaintiff again served a notice dt. 3. 10. 1986, asking the defendant for sending the names of two punchas so that the matter may be referred to the arbitrators for arbitration. Still the defendant remained silent and did not reply the said notice. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant-non-petitioner No. 1 for rendition of accounts and injunction on 13. 10. 1986. On receipt of summon of the suit, the defendant on 23. 12. 86, filed an application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). THE defendant in this application admitted that the partnership deed was executed on 11. 2. 1985 but according to the defendant, the said deed came to an end on 21. 6. 1985 and the plaintiff received more than Rs. 30,000/- of a share in the business. In para No. 6 of the application, the defendant alleged as under : - "****hidni****"

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the defendant supported the order of learned District Judge No. 1, Alwar. He argued that the trial court rejected the application under Section 34 of the Act merely on the ground that the defendant did not reply to the notice served by the plaintiff. He argued that from mere silence it cannot be inferred that the defendant was always and still ready and willing for arbitration. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on judgments reported in AIR 1947 Lahore 215 (8), AIR 1979 Rajasthan 84 (9), AIR 1980 Goa 25 and AIR 1975 S. C. 469 (10), AIR 1958 Punjab 19 (11), AIR 1985 Patna 302 (12) and AIR 1957 Punjab 223 (13 ).