A duly certified copy of the original arbitration agreement is required for reference to arbitration under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; a certified copy from a photocopy is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. G.R. Sahoo, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 1 & 2, Mr. J. Pal, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 3(b) to 3(d) and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Advocate for Opposite Party No.4.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 29.03.2025 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, 1^st Court, Cuttack passed in C.S. No.1161 of 20224, wherein the prayer of the Defendants 3 to 5 to treat the certified copy of the partnership deed for the purpose of arbitration has been refused and they are directed to produce the original thereof.

3. Present Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are the Plaintiffs, who filed the suit, praying for declaration relating to the shops as joint family property and rendition of accounts along with other related reliefs. For better appreciation, the reliefs prayed for in the plaint are reproduced below:-

“(i) Let it be declared and decreed that the Jyotsna Alankar Bhandara illegally renamed as Jyotsna Alankar at Darghabazar and Rajlaxmi Jewellers at Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar are the joint family, i.e. Hindu undivided jewellery shops of both the parties.

(ii) Let it be directed the defendants for taking of accounts of the stock of jewelers, those are lying in both the shops in presence of both parties.

(iii) Let a decree be passed for settlement of accounts of the jewellery shops till the date of filing the suit.

(iv) Let it be declared that the plaintiffs have 1/5^th share each in the jewellery shops and they are entitled to their share either in cash r in jewellery ornaments from the shops.

(v) Let it be declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive back their personal contribution to the jewellery business, i.e.Rs.1,66,47,071/- by the plaintiff no.1 and Rs.44,86,619/- by the plaintiff no.2.

(vi) Let the defendant no.3, who represents also defendant nos.4 and 5, be permanently injuncted in not creating any disturbances in running the two jewellery shops by the plaintiffs.

(vii) Let the cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(viii) Let any other decree/decrees be passed, to which the plaintiffs are entitled to under law and equity.”

4. Defendants 3 to 5, who are present Petitioners, upon their appearance prayed to refer the matter for arbitration in terms of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, “the Act”). For the said purpose, they filed a petition praying to treat the certified copy of the original partnership deed containing the arbitration clause as the requirement fulfilled for the purpose. This was objected by the Plaintiffs that the alleged certified copy of the partnership deed produced by Defendants 3 to 5 are the copies drawn from the photocopies of the partnership deed produced by said Defendants in the earlier arbitration proceeding, i.e. Arbitration Case No.91 & 92 of 2024 commenced under Section 9 of the Act at the instance of said Defendants. Therefore, the certified copy of the partnership deed as produced by Defendants 3 to 5 is not fulfilling the requirement in terms of (2) of the Act. Considering such objection of the Plaintiffs and other Defendants, the learned trial court in the impugned order dated 29.03.2025 directed the Defendants 3 to 5 to produce the original of the partnership deed.

5. From aforesaid analysis of the facts, the point falls for consideration is whether production of certified copy of the partnership deed by Defendants 3 to 5 would amount compliance under Section 8 (2) of the Act ?

6. It remai