MONORANJAN MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) A very short but important point arises in this civil revision which has been directed against the order No. 25, dt. 16-8-82 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta refusing to consider the present petitioners prayer for dismissal of the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act being not maintainable with the observation that the question of dismissal of the suit can arise after framing of issues after filing of written statement by the defendant and after hearing the preliminary issue about maintainability of the suit at the instance of the defendant.

( 2 ) MR. Tarun Sankar Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed before me a decision of our High Court reported in AIR 1966 Cal 259, S. P. C. Engineering Co. v. Union of India in which P. C. Mullick, J. has observed that a proceeding under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act is not a suit within the meaning of Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent. He has, therefore, submitted that when in the proceeding under S. 41 of the Arbitration Act, the learned Chief Judge by order No. 15 dt. 20-1-82 while disposing of the application for appointment of receiver filed at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document