KUNTHI AMMAL Vs. SARANGAPANI CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order passed by the City Civil Judge in a suit to have an agreement submitting a case for arbitration filed in Court and to provide for the arbitration in accordance with law. The agreement sought to be enforced was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants referring disputes about their joint family property to five panchayatdars, asking them to divide it among the signatories to the document. One of the panchayatdars refused to act as an arbitrator. For this and other reasons the defendants contended that the agreement could not be enforced. They also contended that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it fell within the scope of the Indian Arbitration Act (IX of 1899) which vests the High Court with exclusive jurisdiction to try suits of this nature. The learned City Civil Judge overruled these contentions and passed the following order: I, therefore, direct that Bhagirathi Pillai be appointed arbitrator in place of the person who has resigned and remit this case to the original arbitrators who have not resigned and this additional person newly appointed to dispose of the case according to law and submit a finding within one month.

(2.) This appeal has been filed by the defendants against this order.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the Indian Arbitration Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Original Side of the High Court to determine this matter, as, if it were the subject-matter of a suit, the suit could be instituted only in a Presidency Town, and that the Civil P. C., Second Schedule, provides that the Second Schedule of that Code shall not apply to any case falling within the purview of the Indian Arbitration Act. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the Indian Arbitration Act will not apply to submissions or arbitrations where there are five arbitrators as in the present case, that is, more arbitrators than one contemplated by Secs.8 and 9 of the Act and that, even if the Act applies, the City Civil Court has jurisdiction as it is directed under the Madras City Civil Court Act (VII of 1892) to take cognizance of all suits triable on the Original Side of the High Court provided the value of the suit does not exceed Rs. 2,500, and provided further that the suit does not relate to Probate, Matrimonial and Insolvency Proceedings. It is admitted that the present case falls within these provisions of the Madras City Civil Court Act.