JUDGMENT

Pathak, J. - This is a defendant's revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the trial court allowing a plaint to be converted into an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act.

2. On March 18, 1952, suit No. 1 of 1952 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent alleging that a dispute had arisen between the parties in respect of money due on business transactions between them, that the dispute was referred to arbitration on the basis of an arbitration clause in the contracts and the arbitrators made an award on January 3, 1952 awarding a sum of Rs. 13,592[11[ - in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, that after adjustment of an amount due to the defendant-applicant he remained liable to pay Rs. 7,892 [11]]- which liability he duly acknowledged and promised to pay within 8 days thereafter, that the defendant-applicant did not pay the said amount within the period aforesaid in spite of demand made by the plaintiff-respondent and that. therefore, the said amount was due with interest.

3. In defence, the defendant-applicant denied any contract between the parties, alternatively pleaded that they were wagering contracts, challenged the validity of the award and denied that he had agreed to pay any amount. It was specifically contended that the suit. was barred by Section 32 of the Arbitration Act.

4. On May 6, 1952 the plaintiff-respondent made an application praying that the plaint be converted into an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the- Arbitration Act. On May 7, 1952, the application was rejected and on May 31, 1952 the trial court dismissed the suit as barred by Section 32 of the Act. There- after, on July 2, 1952 the plaintiff-respondent filed an application purporting to be under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, which was registered as suit No. 6 of 1952. The defendant applicant filed an objection under Section 33 of the Act, which in its turn was registered as suit No. 8 of 1952. Meanwhile, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal (First Appeal No. 164 of 1953) to this Court against the dismissal of suit No. 1 of 1952. That appeal was allowed by Bishambhar Dayal, J. on February 2, 1965 and the case was remanded to the trial court with the following observations :

"The plaintiff may either proceed with the suit in its present form or apply to have it converted into an application under 'Sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act, and pray for the necessary amendments to be incorporated in the plaint."

On September 3, 1965, an application was made for the review of the judgment of this Court in the First Appeal. The review application was rejected by the following order

"By the main order disposing of the appeal this Court had held that the plaintiff had a choice either to proceed with the suit as it is or to have it converted into an application under the Arbitration Act. It has now been brought by this application to the notice of this Court that the plaintiff had already filed an application under the Arbitration Act. The contention is that he had no right thereafter to proceed with this appeal in this Court I am unable to agree with this contention. If the order of the court below dismissing the suit as incompetent was wrong he had a right of appeal and have it set aside. Now he has the same choice which was given to him in the judgment either to proceed with the suit after remand or to proceed with the application under the Arbitration Act and to let the suit be dismissed.

I see no force in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.

3-9-65.

Sd. B. Dayal."

5. The application and the objection, registered as suits Nos. 6 and 8 of 1952 were taken up by the trial court and dismissed on May 23, 1966.

6. Then on March 21, 1969, the plaintiff-respondent made a fresh application in suit No. 1 of 1952 praying that the plaint be converted into an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. The defendant-applicant preferred an objection. On