ORDER

1. This application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) has been filed by the applicant for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

2. In brief, the case of the applicant is that he had entered into an exchange agreement dated 15.10.2021, with 8 persons (assign numbers??) namely 1.Smt. Ayodhyabai W/o Late Shri Gopalji Balai, 2.Madanlal S/o Late Shri Gopalji Balai, Savita D/o Late Shri Gopalji Balai, Rekha D/o Late Shri Gopalji Balai, Krishnabai W/o Manohalji Balai, Kundan S/o Manoharji Balai, Priya D/o Manoharji Balai and Khushi D/o Manoharji Balai.

3. The said agreement was for the exchange of land, and admittedly out of the aforesaid 8 persons as party of the first part, only 5 persons have signed the agreement, and Savina, Priya and Khushi have not signed the same, and Clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the said agreement also provides for reference of dispute to Arbitrator.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted now that a dispute has arisen between the parties, though the aforesaid 3 persons namely Savina, Priya and Khushi have not signed the agreement as they were not available at that time, and on their behalf, their mother Ayodhyabai and other family members have signed the documents and thus, the Arbitrator may be appointed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the said agreement dated 15.10.2021 itself is a forged document and on the basis of the aforesaid forged document, no Arbitrator can be appointed. It is submitted that the document can be demonstrated to be forged, as a civil suit has been filed against the present respondents by one Badrilal S/o Mangilal in respect of the disputed land in the Civil Court at Dewas, wherein a photo copy of the aforesaid document (exchange agreement) has also been produced by him, however, a perusal of the aforesaid photocopy of the agreement would clearly reveal that in Clause No.3, there is no arbitration clause appended, as in the case of the present case. Thus, it is submitted that the arbitration clause has been subsequently added in the agreement and thus, the document being forged, cannot be relied upon.

6. It is also submitted that three persons who are also the parties to the agreement have admittedly not signed the same, and other nonapplicants whose signatures are appended to the document are forged, and they have also not accepted any amount from the applicant. Counsel has also submitted that as per the details of payment, the applicant has paid an amount of Rs.70 Lakhs in cash to the respondents, which in itself is incomprehensible, and apart from that, a cheque of Rs.5 Lakh dated 20.10.2021 is said to have been given whereas the agreement itself is allegedly executed on 15.10.2021. Thus, it is submitted that no case for appointment of Arbitrator is made out. In support of his submissions, counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decisions rendered by Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s MVR Constructions v. M/s VMR Constructions and others passed in W.P. No.4604 of 2018 dated 21.2.2024 and order dated 3.4.2017 passed by this Court in A.C. No.15 of 2015 in the case of M/s BNR Enterprises v. Smt. Laxmidevi and order dated 07/07/2023 passed in M.A No.5201 of 2022 in the case of Nitesh v. Mohan and others.

7. In rebuttal, Shri Nilesh Agrawal, counsel for the applicant has submitted that admittedly the agreement has been signed by 5 of the family members and so far as the payment of Rs.70 Lakhs in cash is concerned, the applicant has asserted that the aforesaid amount has been given in cash and it is for the Arbitrator to decide if the amount has been paid or not, and regarding the cheque of Rs.5 Lakh, it is submitted that it was a post dated cheque and thereafter Rs.4 Lakhs have also been transferred in the account of Rekha who is also a signatory of the agree