ORDER: The above civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 3.12.2002 made in I.A.No.85 of 2002 in O.S.No.440 of 2001 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein under O.12, Rule 6 of C.P.C. read with O.14, Rules 3(c), 4, 6 and 7 and O.15, Rule 1 of C.P.C. praying to pass an order to dismiss the above suit as not maintainable pursuant to specific clause for Arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act in terms of the Clause 23 of the suit document No.1, dated 2.10.1987 and I.A.No.86 of 2002 praying for an order of interim stay, on grounds such as that the impugned order and the decretal order passed by the Court below is erroneous and against the weights of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the lower Court ought to have seen that the suit document No.1, is containing the Arbitration Clause 23 and ought to have considered the same in its true sense of language, words and phrases and terms thereof; that the Court below without applying its mind in considering the finding of this Court in respect of the Arbitration Clause 23 of the Partnership Deed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Original Application No.1946 of 2000 and the reasons for such finding.

2. Tracing the history of the case, what comes to be known is that the respondents have filed the above suit in O.S.No.440 of 2001 for partition and rendition of accounts of the 1st defendant firm; that originally the respondents herein filed a suit before this Court and this Court by its order dated 20.10.2000 made in Application No.1946 of 2000 has dismissed the leave to sue application in an un-numbered suit with a finding of Arbitration clause in suit document No.1 of the partnership deed vide Clause 23; that against the said fair and decretal order the respondents herein preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.53 of 2001 and the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 24.4.2001, has dismissed the above appeal thereby confirming the fair and decretal order of the learned single Judge of this Court; that at the time of pronouncing the judgment, the learned counsel for the respondents herein has prayed eight weeks time for representing the plaint before the proper Court and the Division Bench of this Court has granted eight weeks time as prayed for by the respondents herein.

3. The further case of the petitioners is that the petitioners herein have lodged a caveat on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, for the purpose of raising the plea for maintainability of the suit, but the respondents herein by playing fraud, laid down the above suit without due notice after numbering the above suit, and obtaining an ex parte commission order behind the back of these petitioners, in order to defeat the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners about the maintainability of the above suit and hence, the petitioners herein filed the above application in I.A.No.85 of 2002 in O.S.No.440 of 2001 praying to dismiss the suit, in terms of the Arbitration Clause 23 of the Partnership Deed and I.A.No.86 of 2002 praying for an order of interim stay.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents herein before the lower Court, besides generally denying the averments in the affidavit, they would submit that the arbitration clause applied only to the disputes between the partners and does not apply to the legal heirs of partner; that since the respondents are not the partners, the application is liable to be dismissed in limini; that since the petitioners have not filed their written statement, they can raise the same as preliminary issue and hence the respondents would pray to dismiss the above application.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge, based on the above pleadings would frame his own point for consideration and would discuss the same elaborately and would ultimately dismiss both the above applications

Click Here to Read the rest of this document