JOHARIMAL Vs. FATEHCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal under Section 39(1)(v) of the Indian Arbitration Act (Act No. X of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 9-3-1956 of the Senior Civil judge Chum, rejecting the application of the defendants under Section 34 of the Act.

(2.) THE plaintiff Fatehchand son of Champalal of Churu instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Chum on 1-3-1955 against defendant Joharimal and 10 others for recovery of Rs. 32,500/-: Rs. 27,780/11/6 as principal and Rs. 4,719/4/6 as interest. Chainrup and Sohanlal were impleaded as pro forma defendants Nos. 12 and 13. It is not necessary to set out the case of the plaintiff for the disposal of this appeal. THE suit was registered on 2-3-1955 and 26-3-1955 was fixed for the settlement of issues. On this date, Shri Vishambhar Dayal and Shri Manoharlal, Advocates presented their Vakalatnama on behalf of Joharimal., defendant No. 1 and appeared for him. THE other defendants could not be served and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 17-5-1955, THE plaintiff of course On this date applied for making some clerical amendments in the plaint which were opposed by the defendant Joharimal's counsel, but the objection was overruled and the amendments were permitted. On 17-5-1955, the Presiding Officer of the court was on leave and nothing substantial happened. THE case was adjourned to 20-7-1955. In the meanwhile, on 27-6-1955, Shri Vishambhar Dayal, counsel for the defendant put in an application in the court for orders directing the plaintiff to arrange for inspection by the defendant of the account-books on which the suit was based as also of the original agreement referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint. It was mentioned that the original agreement had not been produced alone: with the plaint. This application was heard in the presence of Shri Keshav Prasad Gupta, counsel for the plaintiff on the same day and it was ordered that the documents might be inspected on 5-7-1955. However, the inspection of the documents on 5-7-1955 could not be given by the plaintiff and therefore, on 77-1055 directions for arranging inspection on 20-7-1955 were issued by the court. On 20-7-1955 Shri Manoharalal siting that he would file Vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant No. 1 requested for an adjournment for filing written statement and Vakalatnama. It may be pointed out here that Vakalatnama on behalf of Joharimal having already been filed, thy inclusion of his name in connection with a promise to file Vakalatnama is evidently an error due to inadvertence. THE plaintiff produced account-books and further three more documents and the defendant was directed to inspect them. THE case was adjourned to 15-9-1955. In the meanwhile, an application was put in by Shri Vishambhar Dayal on behalf of Joharimal on 25-7-1955 in which it was stated that the inspection of account- books was being carried on and that the inspection revealed a number of irregularities is the maintenance of the books. It was, therefore, prayed that the account-books should be secured and kept in the custody of the court.

(3.) THE point is of importance and in view of the expanding commercial activities and the increasing practice in the commercial world of entering into agreements for reference of disputes to arbitration and of incorporating arbitration clauses in general agreements, we examined a number of English and Indian cases including those cited by Shri Chandmal to find out a workable, if not a theoretically, perfect and scientific definition of the expression, "step in. proceedings" occurring in Section 34 of the Act and for finding out the ratio for determining it.