JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decretal order dated 28.06.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in OS.No.130 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ambattur.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned District Munsif, Ambattur dated 28.06.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in OS.No.130 of 2022.

2. The 2nd defendant in the said suit is the revision petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 - plaintiffs filed the said suit against the revision petitioner and the 4th respondent/1st defendant seeking the relief of declaration that plaintiffs 2 & 3 have got all the rights to operate, maintain and handle the bank accounts of the 1st plaintiff lying with the 1st defendant's bank and for mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to revoke and remove the freezing imposed on bank accounts. After receiving the suit summons, the revision petitioner, who is the 2nd defendant, had filed the said application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and sought to refer the suit for Arbitration. However, the said application was dismissed by an impugned order. Aggrieved over that, this civil revision petition has been preferred.

3. The first respondent /plaintiff is the partnership firm, in which, plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the revision petitioner are partners. The partnership deed was originally entered into on 19.03.1998 and later it was reconstituted on 01.04.2008 by virtue of a reconstitution deed. The partnership deed and the reconstituted deed were marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 before the trial Court. The revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent/3rd plaintiff are the sons of the 2nd plaintiff-Mr.P.Arumugam.

3.1. When the original partnership deed was written on 19.03.1998, the revision petitioner and his father alone were the partners of the 1st plaintiff-M/S. Precision Engineering and in the said partnership deed, under Clause 17, it was agreed that all the disputes relating to partnership business or its dissolution arising out of the deed should be resolved by arbitration and the decision of the Arbitrator should be final and binding on all the partners of the firm. Later, when the 3rd plaintiff-Mr.A.Murugan was inducted into the partnership firm and when the reconstituted deed was written, the earlier Clause about arbitration was not included. When the petitioner/ 2nd defendant filed the said application under Section 8 of the Act to refer the said suit for arbitration by invoking Clause 17 of the partnership deed dated 19.03.1998, respondents 1 to 3 herein namely the plaintiffs contested that the reconstituted deed does not contain any Clause as to arbitration and hence, such an order cannot be passed.

4. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam, learned counsel on record for the revision petitioner submitted that even though the reconstituted deed did not contained the arbitration clause, by taking into consideration of the clause included in the original partnership deed dated 19.03.1998, the Court below ought to have referred the suit for Arbitration.

5.1. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a partnership firm is like a running bus, in which, partners will keep on changing like passengers; just because there was a reconstitution in the partnership in the year 2008 by inducting the 3rd plaintiff, who is another son of the 2nd plaintiff, as a partner, it cannot be said that the terms of the earlier partnership deed dated 19.03.1998 will not be applicable; even in the reconstituted deed, the partners agreed to continue their business and that would only mean that