BHONRILAL HIRALAL Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Alwar, dated 1st May, 1978, whereby he rejected the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and refused to stay the proceedings of the Civil Suit.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29th March, 1976, Pra-bhu Dayal s/o Bhonrey Lal and Raghu-nandan s/o Prabhu Dayal filed a suit for the dissolution of the firm Bhonri Lal Hiralal and for rendition of accounts of the firm and for partition of the movable and immovable properties and for separate possession. The plaintiffs also moved an application for appointment of receiver under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. On 30th March, 1976, one of the defendants Om Prakash appeared in the trial Court suo motu and requested that he should be heard before passing any order on the application under Order 40, Rule 1. The copy of the application and the plaint was given to the defendant Om Prakash and the summons of the suit and notices of the application for appointment of receiver were ordered to be issued for the other defendants. The case was fixed for 15th April, 1976 for hearing arguments on the application for appointment of receiver. I deem it necessary to reproduce the order-sheet dated 30th March, 1976 as most of the arguments have been advanced on the basis of the order passed on 30th March, 1976:- ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..

(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no complicated question of law involved in the suit and even a question of law can be decided by the arbitrator and the learned trial Court was wrong in refusing to stay the proceedings of the suit on this ground. Reliance is placed on Firm Chimanram Mothilal v. Firm Van-dravandas Gordhandas, AIR 1948 Bom 55, and Chandanmull Jhalaria v. Clive Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1948 Cal 257.