IMPORTANT POINT
The mere existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of civil courts unless explicitly stated in law.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr. Vishal Mehta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, learned advocate Mr. Akash A. Singh waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 45 and learned advocate Mr. Bharat Jani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.47. Although served with the notice issued by this Court, none appears on behalf of the respondent No.46.

2. This Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is arising out of the order 05.02.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad whereby the application submitted by original defendant No.1 under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in the suit filed by the respondent No.1-original plaintiff came to be rejected.

3. The facts emanating from the captioned Civil Revision Application are that the applicants herein are the original defendant Nos.1 to 9 in the suit filed by the respondent No.1- original plaintiff being Special Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2015 for cancellation of the sale deed. The applicant Nos.1 to 7 entered into a partnership deed by executing a partnership deed dated 29.10.2009 in the name and style as M/s. Satkar Corporation for the purpose of carrying out various business including dealing in land and development. Later, vide supplementary deed dated 21.10.2011, the aforesaid partnership deed came to be supplemented and two other partners, i.e, respondent No.1-Dhavalbhai Bhogilal Vyas and Vandemataram Project Pvt. Ltd. were added in the aforesaid firm M/s. Satkar Corporation. Thereafter, some disputes arose between the respondent No.1 on one hand and the applicants on other hand.

4. On 11.01.2014, the respondent No.2 lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants herein with the Naranpura Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, inter alia, alleging therein that despite demand being made by the respondent No.2, the applicants herein had not given any accounts of the partnership firm and had refused to give amount for which he is entitled for and had sold the flats without having any authorities.

5. Then the partnership firm had requested the respondent No.1 to deposit Rs.1,32,63,031/- due and payable by him. However, the respondent No.1 had declined his liability to pay the said amount. Therefore, the applicants had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.84 of 2014 before the Principal Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the respondent No.1, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing or interfering with the management, affairs or business of the Partnership Firm.

6. Thereafter, the applicants vide notice dated 20.06.2014, invoked Arbitration clause and requested the respondent No.1 to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the partners regarding accounts and other issues. However, the respondent No.1 declined to accept the said request vide its reply dated 01.07.2014, which compelled the applicants to prefer a petition before the Hon’ble High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator, wherein reply also came to be filed by the respondent No.1 on 29.01.2015. The respondent No.1 also filed Special Civil Suit No.69 of 2015 against the applicants herein as well as the other partners on 31.01.2015.

7. Pursuant to the filing of the aforesaid petition, this Court, vide order dated 10.04.2015, appointed Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh (Retired), Former Judge of the High Court of Gujarat as the sole Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes amongst the partners, on the basis of which, the applicants herein filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act on 23.06.2015 for rejection of the suit filed by the respondent No.1 wherein the respondent No.1 had filed its reply on 28.07.2