( 1 ) LIST has been revised but none appears for the respondents.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a revisional order dated 28. 10. 1996 by which an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C. P. C. filed by the defendant-respondents that the suit was barred by Section 32 of the Arbitration Act has been allowed.

( 4 ) DR. Mohd. Afzal was the owner of disputed properties. On his death differences between his two wives arose with regard to the properties left behind by him. It appears that the dispute with regard to the shares amongst the wives and other heirs was settled by the intervention of their well wishers which was reduced in writing and signed by the parties. It is alleged that they took respective possession of their shares but as the respondents were raising some dispute, the plaintiff-petitioners filed a Suit No. 30 of 1980 for declaration of her title. The defendant respondents filed their written statement, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff No. 1 was not a legally wedded wife of late Dr. Mohd. Afzal and the petitioner No. 2 was not his daughter and in fact the defendant No.