N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 31-7-1992 passed in I. A. No. 1271/91 in O. S. No. 471/90 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, rejecting the application filed by the appellants herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

( 2 ) THE reference of the parties in this appeal has been mentioned as arrayedbefore the Trial Court.

( 3 ) ORIGINALLY this appeal was filed by the appellants 1 to 5 (defendants 1to 5) against respondents 1 to 2 (plaintiffs 1 and 2 ). During the pendency of this appeal 1st appellant-lst defendant and 1st respondent-lst plaintiff died. Hence, appellants 6 to 11 were brought on record as legal representatives of the 1st appellant-1stdefendant and respondents 3 to 10 were brought on record as legal representatives of the 1st respondent-1st plaintiff.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 5 filed I. A. No. 1271/91 in O. S. No. 471/90 undersection 34 of the Arbitration Act to stay the proceedings pending before the iv Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on the ground that the dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement. In this matter an Arbitrator has been appointed who entered upon the reference and has made an Award and steps are being taken to get the same filed in Court for making it a rule of the Court. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs who filed O. S. No. 471/90 denying passing of any award.

( 5 ) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 471 /90 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad for a declaration that the six partnership firms mentioned in the plaint are dissolved or alternatively for a decree dissolving the said firms and for rendition of accounts from the defendants 1 to 5 or any other defendants who may be found liable to account. In the said suit, the defendants are 16 in number. Defendants 1 to 5 are appellants herein. All the parties are partners of all the firms. Defendants 1 to 5 represent one group and the plaintiffs represent the other group having interest in all the six partnership firms, namely (1) M/s. Sri Venkateswara Lodge, (2) M/s. Bhasker Picnic cottage, (3) Veerabhadra Corporation, (4) M/s. Tube Well Company, (5) M/s. Srinivasa Enterprise and (6) M/s. Veerabhadra Trading Corporation. The averments in the plaint are that prior to June, 1997 (sic. 1987) differences between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants on the other arose. The said dispute was referred to an arbitrator by name V. G. Krishna Murthy. On the reference to the arbitrator, the defendants 1 to 5 proposed a settlement. As per the settlement, defendants 1 to 5 agreed to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- to the plaintiffs within a stipulated time in addition to giving the plaintiffs certain interest in certain movable and immovable properties belonging to the firms and called upon the plaintiffs to give up all their interest in the six partnership firms and retire from the said firms. The said offer was accepted by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, an agreement dated 15-6-1987 was entered into incorporating certain terms and conditions. The same is not in dispute. As per the terms of the said agreement, defendants 1 to 5 have to pay a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the plaintiffs and also allow the plaintiffs to carry on business in the sweet house situated as on that day at Lakdikapool in hyderabad and in turn the plaintiffs have to retire from all the six partnership firms and release and relinquish their respective shares in all the landed properties situated at Gandipet, Yousufguda and Shamirpet. Pursuant to the said agreement, defendants 1 to 5 paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to the plaintiffs agreeing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- on or before 15-4-1988 with 9% interest p. a. from 15-6-1987. According to Clause 12 of the said agreement, if the defendants 1 to 5 failed to honour the terms and conditions of the said agreement including th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document