R.P. Gupta, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 1989 of IVth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/88, whereby the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order dated 3rd September, 1986 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Sakti, in Civil Suit No. 77-A/1986; by that order the learned Civil Judge had rejected the plaint of the plaintiffs and also an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 16, CPC and an application for temporary injunction was also consequently rejected. The plaint was rejected under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, Part (d), CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by provisions of sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act as there was already an arbitration award passed in the year 1961 between the parties regarding partition of the suit land and although the award was not registered on proper stamp paper nor acted upon for 25 years, the only remedy of challenging the legality or existence of that award was by objections under sections 30 and 33 Arbitration Act, 1940, and a suit for declaration of the title to land or declaration of right to get it partitioned, amounted to challenging that award in a civil suit in a circuitous way which cannot be permitted because of bar created by sections 32 and 33 Arbitration Act.

The plaintiffs predecessor Bhopal Singh and defendant Dhebar Singh are real brothers and Chakradhar is the son of defendant Dhebar Singh. They had joint agriculture land in two villages; Latesara (63.28 acres) as described in schedule-A and village Regda. These were jointly owned and possessed lands of Bhopal Singh and Dhebar Singh. The Plaintiffs had pleaded that under some family arrangement, Dhebar Singh had given some land to Bhopal Singh out of joint lands, for cultivation. However, later Dhebar Singh sold land of village Regda and from the proceeds of those lands he purchased additional land in village Latesara which are mentioned in Schedule-B to the plaint. He, however, purchased them in the name of his son Chakradhar, defendant No. 2.

The defendant No. 1 initiated proceedings for partition of these lands in the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Dabhra, urging that the land in Schedule-A had been partitioned as far back as 1954. In that petition, the plaintiffs objected to these assertions and urged that the lands of Schedule-A were not partitioned, in fact, those lands, always remained in possession of Bhopal Singh. On this, the Naib Tahsildar directed both the parties to get their ownership rights declared from Civil Court. It was also urged in the plaint that there was movable property consisting of cash money, gold and silver obtained by the defendant Dhebar Singh from his father Atmaram, in which the deceased Bhopal Singh was entitled to get half share and the plaintiffs are entitled to get half of that movable property also after the same is declared by defendant No. 1. Hence, the prayer for declaration that the parties were joint owners in possession of the suit land described in Schedule-A and B attached to the plaint.

The defendants filed a preliminary objection to the suit on 29-7-1986, urging that there was a PANCH FAISLA between Bhopal Singh and Dhebar Singh regarding partition of lands. It was in writing and so this suit could not be instituted nor could be proceeded with and that the plaintiffs know about that PANCH FAISLA. It was also urged that the order dated 22-6-1986 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, directing parties to civil suit remedy, had been challenged by the defendants in revision before the Collector which is pending. It is urged that a petition before the Naib Tahsildar was also filed for mutation of names on the basis of old partition resultant from the PANCH FAISLA. In these circumstances, the Naib Tahsildar could not direct that ownership rights be got declared through Civil Court. It was also pleaded that the daughters of Bhopal Singh namely Chandrika Bai, Netkunwar, Gyanmati