ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated

16.06.2016 passed in I.A.No.1028 of 2015 in O.S.No.836 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:

The Petitioner is the defendant in the Suit. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit O.S.No.836 of 2014 for a decree and judgment against the defendants as follows:

(a) To direct the Defendant to finalize with the Plaintiff for the statement of accounts viz., M/s Shri Sai Anugrahaa Foundations and settle the profit and loss among the Plaintiff and Defendants, failing which the Court may ascertain the profit and loss account and settle the amount between the Plaintiff and Defendant.

(b) To dissolve the partnership firm of M/s Shri Sai Anugrahaa Foundations registered with Registrar of Firms, South Chennai, Saidapet bearing No.1672 of 2011 dated 13.10.2021.

3. There was a Deed of Partnership entered between the Petitioner/Defendant and Respondent/Plaintiff at Chennai on 05.05.2010. For better appreciation the relevant Clauses mentioned in the said Partnership Deed are extracted hereunder.

Clause-12: ARBITRATION:

It is mentioned that, any dispute or difference arising among the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of this Deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, by appoint a sole arbitrator.

Clause:13-JURISDICTION:

Every matter arising out of the Deed and all transactions covered by its are subject to the Jurisdiction of Chennai Courts only.

4. The Petitioner/Defendant has filed the Petition I.A.No.1028 of

2015 under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the Plaint in O.S.No.836 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur.

The relevant portion of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is extracted below:

"11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) Where the relief claimed is under-

valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so 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 written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9."

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Defendant contended as follows:

(i) Clause 12 in the Deed of Partnership dated 05.05.2010 between the Petitioner/Defendant and the Respondent/Plaintiff stipulates that, any dispute or difference arising among the partners with respect to the construction or interpretation of this deed or any other matter relating to the partnership affairs shall be referred to the arbitration under the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 by appointing a sole arbitrator.

(ii) The Plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of mis-

jointer and non-jointer of the necessary parties.

(iii) As per Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed, the jurisdiction to decide the dispute was agreed at Chennai Courts only.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that, in paragraph 11 of the Plaint, it is stated that, the statement of accounts shown will disclose the loan as well as repayments arrived by the Respondent/Plaintiff. All of sudden, in the month of September 2013, the practice of counter signing cheques of M/s Shri Sai Anugrahaa Foundations were unilaterally stopped by the Defendant without assigning any valid reason. Hence, in view of Clause 12 of the Deed of Partnership which refers to the arbitration, the above issues arising among the partners shall be referred only to the arbi