O R D E R

01.11.2021 Heard Mr. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.

S. B. Rahman, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Order dated 07.08.2014 passed in Title Suit No. 38/2012 by the learned Civil Judge at Jorhat rejecting the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is put under challenge in this revision petition. The respondent No. 1 herein as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 38/2012 in the court of learned Civil Judge at Jorhat against the petitioner as the defendant along with the other defendants impleaded as proforma respondents in this revision petition. The suit is for rendition of accounts, declaration, recovery of damages and permanent injunction. The rendition of accounts is on the basis of a partnership deed amongst the predecessor-in-interest of the main plaintiff respondent No. 1 and brothers of the said predecessor-in-interest. Therein Clause No. 5 which is extracted herein below stipulates as follows:-

“Clause 5. That R. K. Bezbaruah and N. K. Bezbaruah two of the partners shall jointly manage the financial affairs and bank accounts of the firm. Any dispute or difference unless otherwise agreed, shall be referred to the other partners in the first instance and if not resolved shall be referred to the arbitration of mutually agreed third party”.

3. The said clause speaks referral of any dispute for arbitration by mutually agreed third party. Accordingly after filing of the suit, summons were issued to the defendants therein including the present petitioner arrayed as the defendant No. 1 and the partnership firm M/s Boloma Tea Company arrayed as defendant No. 2 i.e. respondent No. 2 in this revision petition. The present petitioner as one of the defendants filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 thereby praying before the court for referring the parties to arbitration. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 submitted his written objection raising the plea that the subject matter of Title Suit No. 38/2012 is not covered by the alleged arbitration agreement and there are many issues which are beyond the arbitration agreement. Moreover, the jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be invoked by the court below as some of the defendants in the suit are not party/parties to the arbitration agreement and as such the application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is required to be dismissed. The learned Civil Judge, Jorhat vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2014 rejected the prayer of the petitioner.

4. The learned court below having gone through the plaint came to the finding that though it was argued that the plaintiff did not seek for any relief against the other defendants except the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 but upon consideration of the prayer portion of the plaint, the learned court below held that the plaintiff sought relief against the other defendants who are not the parties to the Partnership Deed more particularly the defendant Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and the suit cannot be bifurcated one part to be decided by the arbitral tribunal and the other one by the civil court. Thereafter the learned court below relied the decision rendered in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. –Vs- Jayesh H. Pandya reported in AIR 2003 SC 2252 and held that such bifurcation of suit in two parts, one to be decided by the arbitral tribunal and other to be decided by the civil court would inevitably delay the proceedings and the whole purpose of speedy disposal of dispute and decreasing the cost of litigation would be frustrated by such procedure and as such rejected the said application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed this revision petition.

5. Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on reading of the plaint it reveals that the suit was in the nature of rendition of account of the partnership