R.N.Prasad, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.3.2005 passed by Subordinate Judge X, Patna in Title Suit No. 296 of 1998 whereby the petitioners prayer to refer the dispute forarbitration has been rejected.

2. Title Suit No. 296 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite parties-1st set for declaration that the reconstituted partnership deed dated 17.2.1992 effective from 1.4.1992 is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and without the desire and intention to retire from the partnership of Babu Rajendra Prasad Singh and it be declared that the plaintiffs being heirs of Babu Rajendra Prasad Singh be deemed to be continuing as partners to the extent of the share of Babu Rajendra Prasad Singh.

3. Summons were issued to the defendants in the said suit, Defendant No. 2 appeared in the suit and filed written statement. Defendant No. 3 who is petitioner in this civil revision also appeared in the suit and before filing written statement filed a petition to contest the suit. He also filed petitions on 25.11.2004 and subsequently 16.12.2004 and 28.2.2005 making prayer therein that the matter be referred to the arbitrator in view o