Honble YADAV, J. — The instant revision petition has been posted for disposal of the stay application in the Daily Cause List although vide order dated 9.2.95, the office was directed to list this case today for hearing. However, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this revision petition is being heard and decided on merits at admission stage.

(2). The factual matrix of the case necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present revison petition, is that the respondents submitted an application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act on 28.3.89 as there was a clause in the partnership deed of the firm Agra Sweet Home, Sojatiya Gate, Jodhpur dated 3.9.80 by which a new firm under the name and style was constituted in place of the old firm which had previously been constituted vide partnership deed dated 1.4.77 stipulating that in case of a dispute in between the partners it shall be referred to arbitration. It is to be noticed that the matter was instituted under the Arbitration Act along with an application under Order 40, Rule 1, CPC which was registered as case No. 10- B/89 in the court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur. I am constrained to observe that the application which was moved under Order 40, Rule 1, CPC in the year 1989 could not be disposed of even till 1995 despite due service. It is further noticed that arguments on the aforesaid application could not be heard for one reason or the other till April 2, 1994. On 2.4.1994, the respondents submitted an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 22, Rule 10, CPC for amendment of the previous application moved under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC by adding new persons in the array of respondents on the plea that respondents No.l to 4 have closed the old firm and istead of that, a new firm Agra Sweets is carrying on business at that place. It is also alleged that the respondents submitted an application on 1.10.94, for taking on record the affidavits of Man Mohan, Ashok Gupta, Kan Singh, Sunil Gehlot and Ravinder Singh on the plea that filing of further affidavits has become necessary on account of subsequent events. The revisionists before me filed their reply to the said application on 17.10.94 stating therein that the affidavits filed by the aforesaid persons do not relate to subsequent events and further contended that in case the additional affidavits are taken on record then the revisionists should also be allowed to file counter affidavits.

(3). It is brought to my notice that the learned trial court vide its order dated 24.10.94 accepted the prayer of the respondents and received on record the additional affidavits filed by the five persons named-above. The trial court allowed the revisionists to file counter affidavits. The revisionists filed their counter-affidavits controverting the facts stated in the aforesaid five additional affidavits. On 7.11.94, the revisionists submitted an application under Order 19, Rules 1 and 2, CPC for leave of the Court to cross-examine the aforesaid five persons, who had filed their additional affidavits, Learned Civil Judge heard the arguments on 11.11.94 and dismissed the application moved under Order 19, Rules 1 and, CPC for grant of leave of the Court to summon five deponents for cross-examination vide his impugned order dated 16.11.94 with cots of Rs.200/-.

(4). I have heard Mr. R.R. Chacha, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. L.R.Calla, learned counsel appearing , for Respondents at length and critically examined the order dated 16.11.94 under challenge.

(5). The main thrust of arguments- of the learned counsel for the revisionists, is that the impugned order passed by the trial court is per verse and the learned Civil Judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity in rejecting the application of the revisionists moved under Order 19, Rules 1 and 2, CPC for summoning the witnesses for cross-examination. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document