DHAN RAJ Vs. PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act), from the order dated November 16, 1974, by the District Judge, Pali, on an application filed by the appellant under section 20 of the Act.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the application may be stated within a narrow compass. A partnership was entered into between the appellant Dhan Raj and the respondents Pratap and Raja on November 13, 1966 and a partnership deed was also duly executed. Clause (17) of the partnership deed, which refers to arbitration, reads as follows: - "17. If during the continuance of the partnership or at any time afterwards any dispute or difference of opinion arises between the parties or any of their legal representatives regarding the partnership accounts and transactions thereof, or the construction, meaning or effect of this deed or any thing herein contained on the rights and liabilities of the partners or their legal representatives, every such dispute, difference or question shall be referred to arbitration and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, shall apply at the time of reference. "

(3.) THE above extracted passage, leaves no room for argument that an application under the Arbitration Act would be governed by Article 137. THE inevitable corollary that flows from the aforesaid decision is that an application under section 20 of the Act would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as under: - "137. Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Division. Three years when the right to apply accrues. "