M. Jaichandren J.

1. This Original Side Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 31.1.2013, made in Application No.99 of 2013, in C.S.No.748 of 2012.

2. Application No.99 of 2013, had been filed, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reject the plaint, in C.S.No.748 of 2012, stating that it is barred under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. The suit, in C.S.No.748 of 2012, had been filed for a declaration, to declare the order of the defendants 5 to 7 therein, the Arbitral Tribunal, dated 23.7.2012, as illegal and invalid in the eye of law. A consequential relief had also been prayed for, to declare the additional claim submitted by the defendants 1 to 4 therein, as void, as they are utra vires the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The plaintiff had also prayed for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 5 to 7 from proceedings with the enquiry, pursuant to the order, dated 23.7.2012. Certain other reliefs had also been prayed for, by the plaintiff in the said suit.

4. The first defendant in the suit had filed an application, in Application No.99 of 2013, raising the issue relating to the maintainability of the suit, stating that it is barred under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. It had been stated, on behalf of the plaintiff, that a number of Civil Suits had been filed by the parties concerned raising various issues. In such circumstances, the parties concerned had agreed to refer the disputes for adjudication, by way of arbitration proceedings. In none of the suits, in C.S.No.689 of 2001, C.S.No.711 of 2002, C.S.No.640 of 2005, C.S.No.22 of 2005, C.S.No.737 of 2004, and C.S.No.119 of 2005, an issue relating to the dissolution of the partnership had been raised. As such, it was not open to the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the issue relating to the dissolution of the partnership.

6. It had been further stated that, when the Arbitral Tribunal goes beyond the scope of reference, it would be open to the plaintiff to challenge the same, by way of a Civil Suit. Therefore, the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff, in C.S.No.748 of 2012, cannot be said to be barred under law, as per Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. The learned single Judge had held, in his order, dated 31.1.2013, that the disputes, which were existing amongst the parties concerned, had been referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, for adjudication. Whether the issue relating to the dissolution of the partnership would form a part of the reference before the Arbitral Tribunal, for adjudicating the same, is under dispute, amongst the parties concerned. As such, it would not be open to this Court to render a decision, with regard to the said dispute, in the Civil Suit, in C.S.No.748 of 2012.

8. It had also been held that the controversy that had arisen amongst the parties concerned, with regard to the dissolution of the partnership, had been raised as an issue before the Arbitral Tribunal. It is for the said Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the said issue and to pass an appropriate award, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The plaintiff in the suit, in C.S.No.748 of 2012, who is the appellant in the present Original Side Appeal, could raise all the grounds available to him, while challenging the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

9. The learned single Judge had also held that even an interim award could be challenged only by following such a procedure. Accordingly, it had been held that the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff, in C.S.No.748 of 2012, is barred under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected, under Order VII Rule 11 of the code of Civil P