USHA RANI Vs. INDERMAL AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition has been filed against the order dt. Oct. 15, 1982, of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Alwar. Under the aforesaid order the learned Addl. District Judge allowed the application by the defendant non-petitioners under S.10 of the Civil P.C. and further proceedings in the case were stayed during the decision of Civil Suit No. 28/80.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a suit in the Court of learned District Judge, Alwar in which a prayer was made for dissolution of firm and for accounts of the firm since Oct. 18, 1979 to April 30, 1980 and also thereafter. THE aforesaid suit was filed against the non-petitioners 1 to 3. An application for appointment of Receiver was also filed under O.40, R.1, C.P.C. In that suit on behalf of the non-petitioners 2 and 3 an application under S.34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (for short, the Act) was filed praying that the proceedings in the suit be stayed. That application was contested on behalf of the petitioner and after hearing learned counsel for the parties the learned District Judge under order dt. Aug. 27, 1980 dismissed the application under S.34 of the Act. THE non petitioners 2 and 3 preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order and this Court under its order dated February 23, 1981 allowed the appeal and the application under S.34 of the Act filed on behalf of the non-petitioners 2 and 3 was allowed and further proceedings in the suit were stayed. This Court further directed the parties to have the dispute which was the subject matter of the proceedings adjudicated by arbitration in accordance with the agreement contained in the partnership deed.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, I allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Alwar and dismiss the application filed by the non-petitioners 2 and 3 under S.10, C.P.C. for stay of the proceedings. Costs made easy. Petition allowed. 1987