JUDGMENT

D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code by Badri Das against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge of Meerut, partly allowing and partly dismissing his appeal arising out of an order of the Munsif of Ghaziabad, dismissing his objection to the award and thereby refusing to set aside the award made by Mohan Singh, opposite party No. 2.

2. The material facts of the case are that Badri Das, applicant, and P. K. Ramkrishnan, opposite party No. 1, were partners of an unregistered firm. They entered into an arbitration agreement whereby two matters were referred to the arbitration of the sole Arbitrator, Mohan Singh, opposite party No. 2, who is the partner and proprietor of Sri Guru Nanak Engineering Company, Ghaziabad. The matters referred to arbitration were:

(1) Dispute regarding continuance or otherwise of the partnership and,

(2) Finalisation of accounts. The Arbitrator conducted the arbitration proceeding and within the prescribed period made an award and gave notice thereof to the parties. Thereafter P. K. Ramakrishan, opposite party No. 1, made an application under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act for the filing of the award and the Munsif of Ghaziabad directed the Arbitrator to file the award with depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before him. The Arbitrator filed the award and on notice being given to the parties of the filing of the award Badri Das, applicant, alone filed an objection with the prayer that the award be set aside. The Munsif dismissed the objection and refused to set aside the award. At the same time he ordered that the award shall be made a rule of the court and a decree passed in terms of the award which shall form part of the decree.

3. The Additional Civil Judge in appeal held that the application under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act was maintainable and that the award could be taken notice of. He was further of the opinion that a part of the award was beyond the matters referred to the Arbitrator and hence was without jurisdiction. As the invalid part of the award was severable, the Additional Civil Judge confirmed the valid part of the award and set aside the invalid part thereof. The valid part of the award was made a rule of the court and the decree was to be passed in accordance therewith.

Badri Das is now challenging the orders of the subordinate courts in this revision.

4. Two points have been urged before me; firstly, that Section 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act was a bar to the maintainability of the application under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act with the result that the award could not be made a rule of the court. The second point raised is that the award could not be accepted in part and should have been set aside as a whole.

The material part of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act runs as below :

"(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against .......any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing as or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm."

.........................................................

(3) The provisions of sub-Sections(1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, . . . . . . ."

5. There existed some conflict on the meaning of the expression "other proceeding" used in sub-Sec. (3) oil Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, but the controversy has been set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd., 1964 A.L.J. 971. Restricted, meaning cannot now be assigned to this term and "other proceeding" shall mean any proceeding not necessarily, of the nature of the claim of set-off. The proceeding under the Indian Arbi