BRIMCO BRICKS Vs. SITARAM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Laws of procedure are designed to facilitate justice and not to trip people up, they are devised for advanced justice and not impeding the same. The framers of the Code of Civil Procedure enacted the provisions for abatement of suit of appeal for expeditious disposal of cases in the interest of proper administration of justice and not to penalise the litigant.

(2.) The questions that fall for consideration in the instant case are (i) as to whether the provisions for abatement of suit are also applicable in the Arbitration proceedings? (ii) If provisions are applicable then under what circumstances, the Arbitration proceedings abate?

(3.) These questions emerge in the following circumstances. (a) During the pendency of petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act 1940) non-petitioner Sita Ram on April 30, 1994 moved an application before the learned Court below under Order 22, Rule 3, C.P.C. stating therein that Smt. Chanda Devi, one of the non-applicant in the Arbitration proceedings, died on Aug. 14, 1993. As per legal representatives were not brought o record by the applicants M/s. Brimco Bricks and others, therefore petition under Section 20 of the Act 1940 abated. (b) On May 20, 1994, the legal representation of Late Smt. Chanda Devi alongwith Partner of the firm Damodar Das, submitted another application requesting the learned Court below for bringing the legal representative of Smt. Chanda Devi on record. It was also averred in the application that provisions of Order 22, Rule 3, C.P.C. did not apply to Arbitration proceedings. (c) The learned Court below vide order dated January 12, 1995 disposed of both the applications observing that right to sue did survive in the firm and the other partners of the firm therefore in not bringing the legal representatives of Late Smt. Chanda Devi, the entire Arbitration proceedings did not abate but abated to the extent of the rights of Smt. Chanda Devi. (d) Against this order of the Court below that the action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the petitioners.