By this petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”), the petitioner seeks an appointment of the sole arbitrator by invoking clause 12 of the Memorandum of Family Arrangement dated 8th January 2006 entered into between the parties.

2. In so far as the Civil Application No.7 of 2017 is concerned, by this civil application, the applicant (original respondent no.1) seeks permission to place on record as well as refer to and rely upon the documents annexed along with the said civil application (except Exhibit-A) during the hearing of the Arbitration Petition No.9 of 2015 and seek to file additional objections based on those documents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of the deciding this petition are as under :-

3. The petitioner is the mother of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. The respondent no.3 is the daughter in law of the petitioner. The respondent no.5 is the brother in law of the petitioner and has been impleaded pursuant to the amendment carried out in this arbitration petition by an order dated 6th December 2016. The petitioner is the widow of Chandran Menon who died intestate.

4. On 8th January 2006, Deed of Family Arrangement was arrived at. It is the case of the petitioner that the said deed of family arrangement was drawn up by the respondent no.1 and was executed by all the heirs of late Chandran Menon and heirs of Ram Menon. No discussions or drafts were preceded by the said family arrangement. The petitioner was not even consulted despite being a Senior Member of the family and was merely informed that the basic and fundamental premise underlying the said family arrangement was to demarcate and divide the shares of the founder brothers (Chnadran Menon & Ram Menon). It is the case of the petitioner that she was persuaded by the respondent nos.1 and 2 into signing the said family arrangement and on the assurance that the interest of the petitioner would be taken care of by the sons and it would be an equitable distribution of assets in the hands of all the three children.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 who had also been persuaded into signing the family arrangement was also assured that the moneys paid under the said family arrangement was her due share in the companies and the immovable properties. The said family arrangement contained an arbitration agreement in clause 12 thereof which is extracted as under:-

“12. The disputes, if any, among the parties hereto shall be settled by the process of arbitration as contemplated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other statutory modifications thereof.”

6. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2008, the respondent no.1 expressed his desire to repair and remodel the old structure referred to as Kairali Bungalow. The petitioner did not suspect at that point of time that the respondent no.1 had by then his own designs to move the petitioner out of the house in which she had been living for almost 40 years. Dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 and reached unbearable levels for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that since the respondent no.1 refused to account for the monies of the petitioner, her share of the monies left behind by her husband as against the extravagance in which the respondent no.1 was now indulging. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was reduced to a dependant on the respondent no.1 who would graciously allow her a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance.

7. Some time in the year July or August 2011, the respondent no.4 informed the petitioner that she had received a letter from Menon & Menon Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the KIT property and purporting to be a statement concerning Capital Gains Tax. It is the case of the petitioner that until 2006, even the income tax returns of the respondent no.4 were organised and filed by the respondent no.1 and in so far as the petit