LALCHAND Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against an order of the Additional District Judge, bundi, holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act in respect of the award which was filed before him.

(2.) LALCHAND and Mahabir Prasad entered into a partnership the object of which was to carry on cultivation after purchasing land. Lalchand was residing in Champaran district in Bihar and was the financing partner. Mahabir Prasad was the working partner. Lalchand advanced money to Mahabir Prasad from time to time for purchase of land, agricultural implements, carts etc. for carrying on the work of cultivation and for constructing necessary building for this purpose. Mahabir prasad purchased some land in the name of Lalchand and some in his own name. The partnership commenced in 1961. Disputes arose between the partners. Mahabir Prasad left the farm and took up service in 1963. In 1964 Lalchand and' mahabir Prasad decided to have the disputes between them decided by one of Shri h. P. Kanoria of Calcutta. On 10-10-64 Lalchand addressed the following letter to shri H. P. Kanoria:--I have to inform you that certain disputes and differences have arisen between me and Shri Mahabir Prasad Sharma and we have mutually decided to refer the matter to you for arbitration. I would, therefore, request you to look into the matter and make your award which will be binding on me. "

(3.) THAT a composite suit has to be filed in the Civil Court was held in the following decisions:--Hardayal, v. Jaggasingh, AIR 1969 Raj 89, Rattu v. Mala, 1968 Raj LW 375 = (AIR 1968 Raj 212), Sukhdeo v. Basdeo, 1935 All LJ 582 = (AIR 1935 All 594 ). In Hamirsingh v. Peeth Singh, ILR (1951) 1 Raj 81 the cause of action" for the relief regarding abadi land was entirely different from that in respect of tenancy land. That case is distinguishable.