ORDER :

An application moved by defendant No.1 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (in short the Act) read with Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2021. The parties were directed to refer the dispute raised in the plaint to the Arbitrator. The plaint was also ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs. Based on this order, a separate order of even date was also passed for returning the plaint etc. to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders passed on 20.07.2021, the plaintiffs have moved the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2(i) A civil suit was filed by the petitioners seeking permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining respondent No.1 from interfering in the assets and properties described in the plaint and also in the business of plaintiffs as described therein. A decree of mandatory injunction was also prayed for directing respondent No.1 to execute certain documents.

2(ii) On receipt of the notice of the plaint, defendant No.1/respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was submitted in the application that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 had executed a partnership deed registered on 11.10.2007. In terms of this partnership deed, plaintiff No.2, defendant No.1 and one Sh. Inder Pal became partners of partnership firm M/s Super Vending Technologies (plaintiff No.1). Inder Pal retired as partner of the firm vide ‘Deed Of Dissolution Of Retirement Of One Partner’ registered on 17.3.2016. The other two partners continued as partners of the firm (Petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1). It was also submitted that an arbitration clause was contained in the partnership deed dated 11.10.2007 to the effect ‘that in case of any dispute between the partners, the same shall be referred to an Arbitrator, who may be appointed by mutual consent of the partners.’ Paragraph-3 of the application moved by respondent No.1 reads as under:-

“3. That as per the above said partnership deed dated 11.10.2007 it was mutally agreed amongst the partners of the firm that in event of any kind of dispute between the partners of the firm, same shall be referred to Arbitrator. The contents of relevant paras of the partnership deed are reproduced for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court as under:-

That in case of any dispute between the partners, the same may be referred to an ARBITRATOR, who may be appointed by mutual consent of the partners”.

On the strength of above averments, prayer was made in the application to refer the dispute to arbitration and to order return of the plaint.

2(iii) In their reply filed to the above application, the plaintiffs denied the assertions made in the application. The above extracted para-3 of the application was replied by them as under:-

“Para 3 to 6 That the contents of para 3 to 6 as alleged are wrong hence denied and not admitted to be correct in view of detailed submissions made herein above since there exists no arbitration clause with respect to matter in dispute in as much as the dispute if any is not subject to arbitration in view of minutes of meeting dated 23.12.2019 therefore the contention raised in this paras is a result of misinterpreting and misunderstanding and misconception of the issue involved as such the present application deserves to be dismissed being misconceived/devoid on any merit.”

2(iv) Learned trial Court vide impugned orders dated 20.07.2021 held that the partnership deed dated 11.07.2007 contained a clause in terms of which, the dispute between the partners was required to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. The dispute raised by the petitioners/plaintiffs fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause. Accordingly, vide order dated 20.07.2021, the parties were directed to refer the dispute raised in the plaint to the Arbitrator “as mentioned in