JUDGMENT :

1. As the issue involved in both these Civil Revision Applications is identical, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that both these Civil Applications be heard together. Looking to the issue involved in the matters and with the consent of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.

2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Rasesh Parikh waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.

3. Both these Civil Revision Applications are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the concerned District Court in Civil Misc. Application Nos.23 of 2019 and 24 of 2019 filed by the present applicants under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“the Act of 1963” for short).

4. For the sake of brevity and convenience and as an identical issue is involved in both the Civil Revision Applications, the facts of Civil Revision Application No.460 of 2021 are considered, which are as follows:

4.1 It is the case of the applicants that the respondents issued a Public Notice dated 11.08.2010 in the concerned newspaper and illegally claimed that applicant No.5, a Partnership Firm has been dissolved. Applicant Nos.1 to 4 thereafter issued Public Notice dated 11.09.2010 clarifying that applicant No.5 Partnership Firm has not been dissolved and the same is reconstituted whereby the respondents are ceased to be the partners of the said Firm. Thereafter, the respondents filed Civil Misc. Application No.55 of 2010 before the District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act of 1996” for short). In the said application, the applicants prayed for appointment of Receiver and restraining applicant Nos.1 to 4 from alienating assets of applicant No.5 Partnership Firm. However, the said application was thereafter withdrawn.

4.2 It is stated that thereafter the respondents instituted Civil Suit No.110 of 2011 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for declaration and permanent injunction against applicant Nos.1 to 4 herein from using assets of applicant No.5 Partnership Firm for their personal use and also claimed share in profits of new Partnership Firm. It is also stated that applicant Nos.1 to 4 herein filed an application under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator as Partnership Deed contains an arbitration clause. The respondents herein who were the original plaintiffs of the said suit opposed the application filed under Section 8 of the Act of 1996. The said application was rejected. It is stated that from the said conduct of the present respondents, it can be said that the present respondents have waived their rights under the arbitration clause in the Partnership Deed. Despite the said fact, the respondents herein invoked an arbitration clause and filed an application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 before this Court for appointment of Arbitrator being IAAP No.50 of 2010. It is stated that the present applicants opposed the said application. However, this Court vide order dated 29.04.2011 appointed an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

4.3 It is further stated that after the appointment of the Arbitrator, the applicants under wrong advice of their Advocate never appeared before the learned Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator passed preliminary award dated 27.09.2012 and held that Arbitrator has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and, therefore, after proceedings were conducted ex-parte, final awards dated 03.02.2013 came to be passed by the learned Arbitrator against the applicants.

4.4 At this stage, it is stated that the applicants thereafter filed an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar. The said application was erroneously titled as Civil Suit instead of Misc. Civil Application. At this stag