SUDHA Vs. MANMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been posted for disposal of the stay application in the Daily Cause List although vide order dated 9-2-95, the office was directed to list this case today for hearing. However, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this revision petition is being heard and decided on merits at admission stage.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present revision petition, are that the respondents submitted an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act on 28-3-89 as there was a clause in the partnership deed of the firm Agra Sweet Home, Sojatiya Gate, Jodhpur dated 3-9-80 by which a new firm under the name and style was constituted in place of the old firm which had previously been constituted vide partnership deed dated 1-4-77 stipulating that in case of a dispute in between the partners it shall be referred to arbitration. It is to be noticed that the matter was instituted under the Arbitration Act along with an application under O. 40, R. 1, C.P.C. which was registered as case No. 10-B/89 in the court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur. I am constrained to observe that the application which was moved under O. 40, R. 1, C.P.C. in the year 1989 could not be disposed of even; till 1995 despite due service. It is further noticed that arguments on the aforesaid application could not be heard for one reason or the other till April 2, 1994. On 2-4-1994, the respondents submitted an application under O. 6, R. 17 read with O. 22, R. 10, C.P.C. for amendment of the previous application moved under O. 40, R. 1, C.P.C. by adding new persons in the array of respondents on the plea that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have closed the old firm and instead of that, a new firm Agra Sweets is carrying on business at that place. It is also alleged that the respondents submitted an application on 1-10-94 for taking on record the affidavits of Man Mohan, Ashok Gupta, Kan Singh, Sunial Gehlot and Ravinder Singh on the plea that filing of further affidavits has become necessary on account of subsequent events. The revisionists before me filed their reply to the said application on 17-10-94 stating therein that the affidavits filed by the aforesaid persons do not relate to subsequent events and further contended that in case the additional affidavits are taken on record then the revisionists should also be allowed to file counter-affidavits.

(3.) It is brought to my notice that the learned trial court vide its order dated 2-4-1094 accepted the prayer of the respondents and received on record the additional affidavits filed by the five persons named-above. The trial court allowed the revisionists to file counter affidavits. The revisionists filed their counter-affidavits controverting the facts stated in the aforesaid five additional affidavits. On 7-11-1994, the revisionists submitted an application under O. 19, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. for leave of the Court to cross-examine the aforesaid five persons, who had filed their additional affidavits. Learned Civil Judge heard the arguments on 11-11-94 and dismissed the application moved under O. 19, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of leave of the Court to summon five deponents for cross-examination vide his impugned order dated 16-11-1994 with costs of Rs. 200/-.