1. This civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed by the revisionists-defendants No.2 and 3 against the impugned order dated 11.6.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambah, District Morena in Civil Suit No.5-A/2012, whereby an application filed by the defendants No.2 and 3 under Order 7 rule 11 and section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaint is barred by law has been rejected.

2. The respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the plaint runs as under :

^^v- ;g ?kksf”kr fd;k tk, fd ikVZujf’ki MhM fnukad 5-5-2008 dk oknh rFkk izfroknh dz- 1 o 2 ds e/; fof/kor laikfnr gksdj iathd`r gksus ls fujarj esllZ ckykth dksYMLVksjst ,aM vkbl QSDVªh fLFkr xzke cjsg rglhy vEckg ftyk eqjsuk ds laca/k esa izHkko’khy gSA

c- ;g ?kksf”kr fd;k tk, fd ikVZujf’ki MhM fnukad 20-10-2011 xyr o voS/k QthZ nqHkkZouk ij vk/kkfjr gksus ls fu”izHkkoh o ‘kwU; gksdj izorZuh; ugha gSA

l- ;g ?kksf”kr fd;k tk, fd vuqca/k&i= fnukad 26-8-2011 xyr] voS/k] QthZ] nqHkkZoukiwoZd gksus ls fu”izHkkoh o ‘kwU; gSA

n- ;g fd] oknh ds i{k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo#) bl vk’k; dh LFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk tkjh dh tk, fd izfroknh dz-1 yxk;r 3 fdlh Hkh O;fDr ls esllZ ckykth dksYMLVksjst o vkbl QSDVªh ds laca/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ysu&nsu O;kikj laO;ogkj u djs vkSj izfroknh dz- 4 ds ;gk¡ esllZ ckykth dksYMLVksjst o vkbl QSDVªh ds fyfeV [kkrs ds laca/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dksbZ ysu&nsu laO;ogkj izfroknh dz-4 ls u djs rFkk izfroknh dz- 4 dks fu”ksf/kr fd;k tk, fd izfroknh dz-4 izfroknh dz-1 yxk;r 3 dks esllZ ckykth dksYMLVksjst o vkbl QSDVªh ds laca/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dksbZ ysu&nsu o laO;ogkj u djsA

b- ;g fd oknh dks izfroknh dz-1 yxkr; 3 ls bl okn dk O;; fnyk;k tk,A

Q- vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks oknh ds i{k esa gks izfroknh ds fo#) iznku dh tkosA**

3. Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists has submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for enforcement of the partnership deed dated 5.5.2008 between the parties and the main relief i.e. relief No.1 was sought with regard to the same document. According to him, unless and until main relief is granted, the other reliefs cannot be granted as they are consequential reliefs. As per clause 15 of the aforesaid partnership deed if any dispute arises between the partners, the same has to be referred to arbitration.Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction is not maintainable by virtue of arbitration clause in the partnership deed and, therefore, the suit is barred under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the learned trial Court has committed an error of jurisdiction in rejecting the application filed by the revisionists.

4. Shri Anand V. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order and submitted that the relief of declaring the agreement dated 26.8.2011 and partnership deed dated 20.10.2011 as null and void is not consequential relief, but basically the same are independent reliefs, therefore, the arbitration clause would not come in the way for prosecuting the suit. He has relied upon the following decisions :

(1) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and others v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others [(2006)3 SCC 100];

(2) Vijay Goyal v. Madanlal Goyal and others [2007(3) JLJ 140].

5. As per Order 7 rule 11 of CPC, the plaint is liable to be rejected in the following cases :

“(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to