( 1 ) ON 25th August, 1951 Wahid Husain filed an-application under Section 20 of the Indian arbitration Act (Act X of 1940) in the court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow, praying that the agreement to refer the disputes between the parties contained in the partnership deed dated 18th march, 1947 be ordered to be filed in the court and the court be pleased to nominate an arbitrator for the opposite parties or to appoint an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. In the alternative it was prayed that the writings in paragraph 10 of the application be treated as an arbitration agreement and be ordered to be filed in the court and the court be pleased to nominate an arbitrator for opposite party No. 1 to decide the disputes between the parties.

( 2 ) THE facts alleged in the application are that Wahid Husain applicant and the three opposite parties entered into a partnership for a period of ten years by a registered deed dated 18th March, 1947 for trading in motor cars and for other allied purposes. The 21st clause of the partnership deed provides that:

"any dispute or difference which may arise between the partners or their representatives, with regard to the construction, meaning of this deed or any part thereof, or respecting the accounts, profits or losses of the business or the rights or liabilities of the partners under the deed or the dissolution or winding up of the business or any other matter relating to the firm shall be referred to four arbitrators, one to be nominated by each party and in case of difference of opinion between them by the Umpire selected by the arbitrators. "

The firm named National Motor (India) started business under the management of the applicant and it was stated that the firm was still continuing. Then followed an account of the disputes between the parties and it was stated that in view of the provisions of paragraph 21 the parties referred their dispute to a Board of four arbitrators but the said arbitration ended in fiasco partly as the arbitrators were unable to finish the arbitration within the period of four months allowed under the Arbitration Act. Then the parties were asked to name their arbitrators but opposite party No. 1 has refused to do so. The valuation of the application for purposes of jurisdiction was put at Rs. 20,000/ -.

( 3 ) WRITTEN statements were filed by the three opposite parties on 16-11-1951, 17-12-1951 and 16-11-1951 respectively. The plaintiff then moved an application for amendment and this was allow- ed by the courts order dated 2-12-1952. Additional written statements were filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 on 16-1-1953 and then the matter came up for arguments.

( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge framed the following three issues: 1. Is this application barred by Section 69 of the. P. Act? 2. Was the agreement never given effect to? If so, its effect? 3. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ? The learned Civil Judge decided that the application before him was barred by the provisions of Section 69 (3 ). He further held that issue No. 2 did not arise for determination as the matter was really a question of the merits of the case. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge held that the applicant was not entitled to any relief and dismissed the application with costs.

( 5 ) AGAINST that order this first appeal from order has been filed by Wahid Husain the applicant. The matter came up before a learned single Judge of this Court and he was of the opinion:

"the matter does not appear to be free from difficulty. It requires a consideration of some Bench cases of the Allahabad High Court. It also appears to me to be a question of importance and it is likely to arise in a number of cases in future".

He, therefore, referred the matter to a Bench and as this was the sole question arising in the case, he has referred the entire case for decision to a Division Bench, The appeal has now been placed before us for decision.

( 6 ) IN this appeal we have heard the learne