1. Whether stranger to an arbitration agreement can be impleaded a party to an application under section 9 Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for short Act) is the short controversy involved in the present revision petition.

2. First the back ground in which the revision petition is filed.

3. The petitioners case is that the father of the petitioner acquired a tenancy right in a shop (hereinafter "suit shop") measuring 23 x 9 situated at Kokerbazar, Srinagar on first baisakh 1991 svt and thereafter started business in the suit shop under the name and style of "Ghulam Rasool Joo & Co"; that after demise of petitioners father, the petitioner took over the possession of the suit shop and started the business of Sanitary fitting and electric goods in the shop. It is pleaded that the petitioner at times allowed his son the respondent No. 2 herein to run the shop, though the tenancy rights and stock in the trade continued to be with the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 according to the petitioner without any right or interest in the suit shop on 7.3.1994, executed a rent deed in respect of the suit shop in favour of one Ghulam Qadir Mir resident of Exchange road, Srinagar that the petitioner because of undesirable activity the respondent no. 2 disinherited the respondent no. 2 issued a public notice in this regard in a local daily and debarred the respondent no. 2 from running the suit shop. It is pleaded that the respondent no. 1 some time back informed the petitioner that his son the respondent no. 2 had executed a partnership deed with the respondent no. 1 regarding business being run in the suit shop, whereafter petitioner filed the suit for grant of declaratory decree declaring the partnership deed executed by the respondents on 31.3.2006 and registered on 03.4.2006 and rent deed executed on 07.3.1994 as null and void and ineffective as against rights of the petitioner and also permanent injunction decree restraining the respondents from interfering in the petitioners possession over the suit shop. The respondent no. 2 is said to have admitted the plaintiffs suit. The Trial court, according to the petitioner, granted ad interim order on 07.10.2006 directing the parties to maintain status quo on spot. It appears that the respondent no.1 making use of arbitration clause appearing the partnership deed dated 07.10.2006 subject matter of Civil Suit instituted by the petitioner, filed an application under section 9 of the Act for interim measures to protect the partnership business and assets thereof. The respondent no.1 pleaded that the dispute between respondent no. I and respondent no. 2 had already been referred by respondent no.1 to the arbitration and pending award as an interim measure the respondent no.1 be allowed to run the business in the shop in accordance with terms and conditions of partnership agreement, the respondent no.2 be restrained from causing interfere in smooth running of the business and the respondent no.2 be restrained from transferring the possession of the suit shop to any other person. The respondent no.1 in alternative prayed for appointment of a receiver so as to save the partnership business from any loss.

4. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar on 29.12.2006 praying therein the petitioner be impleaded as respondent in the application. The petitioners case was that the partnership agreement between the respondent 1 and 2 was nothing but a piece of fraud; that the petitioner was running his business in the suit shop and that the respondents had kept back vital information from the court and ignored to disclose that the Civil Suit assailing validity of partnership deed was sub judice. The petitioner pleaded that the application under section 9 of the Act was aimed to deprive the petitioner of his property and business. The application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner not being a party to the arbitra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document