Section 32 of the Arbitration Act prohibits suits contesting arbitration agreements or awards, emphasizing that all questions regarding arbitration agreements and awards should be dealt with under the Arbitration Act and not by substantive suits.

N.N. Mathur, J.-At the instance of plaintiff appellant this Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.1985 upholding finding of the trial Court on the preliminary issue, as to maintainability of suit being barred by the provisions of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act.

2. The material facts relevant for the disposal of this special appeal, briefly stated, are that the defendant M/s. Supra Films had produced the Picture “JYOT JALE” and entered into an agreement regarding the said Picture with the plaintiff M/s. Jain Pictures on 19.1968 for exhibition in Central India. It is averred that there is an association of Indian Motion Pictures Producers. (Shortly known as IMPPA). There is another association named as Central Circle Cine Association of which the Exhibitors and Distributors of the pictures are members, (shortly known as CCCA). As per the agreement between the parties any dispute between the producers and exhibitors of the films was to be referred to them to resolve it by way of arbitration. The second defendant Tilak Films Distributors, Ajmer was appointed as Distributor for Rajasthan Centre. A dispute arose between the parties with respect to payment of the certain amount. All the disputes between the M/s. Jain Pictures, M/s. Supra Films and Tilak Films Distributors were referred for arbitration to the Joint Tribunal of CCCA & IMPPA. The Plaintiff participated in the arbitration. The Joint Tribunal made an award dated 9.69. The Bombay High Court by order dated 4.70 made the said award rule of the Court. The plaintiff filed same claim before another Tribunal on 23rd April, 1970 which was rejected on 28.71 on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the decree passed by the High Court. The plaintiff also filed an application before the Bombay High Court for setting aside the decree but the same was dismissed by the High Court. After having failed before the Bombay High Court and both the Joint Tribunals the plaintiff filed a Suit in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur on 19.7 1 for a decree in the sum of Rs. 32,632.60 against the defendant. The plaintiff also sought a declaration to the effect that decree dated 4.70 passed by the Bombay High Court in favour of the first defendant and against the plaintiff on the basis of the award dated 9.69 stands adjusted and there is nothing due against it. The suit was contested by the defendant on number of grounds. The defendant raised the plea that the suit was not maintainable being barred by Section 32 of the Arbitration Act. On the material controversy trial Court framed as many as 11 issues. The issue No. 3 was decided as a preliminary issue, which reads as follows:

“Whether the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act?”

3. Thetrial Court namely the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by order dated 5th August, 1972 held that the suit was not barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act for two reasons; firstly the Arbitrators of the Joint Tribunal at Bombay on 20th January, 1971 did not sign the award and as such it was a valid award in the eye of law and secondly because in the absence of an agreement for reference the award was invalid. The first defendant preferred a revision against the said order before this Court under Section 115 C.P.C. This Court found the fact of award being not signed by all the arbitrators factually incorrect. As regards the second ground, it was found that parties were members of different associations, governed by the rules which provided arbitration clause for such matters by the Joint Tribunal. However, since the matter was not considered by the trial Court from that aspect the learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 4th July, 1977 set aside the order of the trial Court and remitted the matter for fresh, decision on issue No. 3. The trial Court heard the matter afresh and by Judgment