JUDGMENT

 Application for substitution is allowed.

2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.660/85, dated May 7, 1985.

3. M/s. Ishar Das Chaman Lal partnership firm consists of Ishar Das, the father, Chaman Lal and Om Prakash, his sons. By a deed of partnership dated 13-12-1965, the aforesaid partnership firm was constituted but the firm was not registered under S.69 of the Indian Partnership Act. Chaman Lal, the eldest son died on 6-3-1978, the obvious reasons of which the partnership stood dissolved. By the death of one of the members, it is no longer possible to adhere to the original contract. The appellants the widow and alleged son of the deceased Chaman Lal called upon the respondents to render the accounts of the firm. Since they did not do so invoking Clause (16) of the partnership deed, the appellants had called upon the respondents to refer the dispute to M/s. Tara Chand and Hans Raj Jain, Income-tax practitioners, the named arbitrators in the contract, to resolve the dispute. Since the respondents had refused to refer the dispute, the appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short the Act. The respondents resisted the claim contending that since the partnership firm was an unregistered one, by operation of S.69 of the Partnership Act, the application under S.20 of the Act would not lie. The trial Court negatived the contention of the respondents. But, on appeal and in revision, ultimately, the High Court held that sub-section (1) of S. 69 exclude the application of S.20 of the Act and consequently, the suit is not maintainable. Thus, this appeal, by special leave.

4. Shri Dhruv Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants neatly contended that the appellants are only seeking to enforce the rights of the parties arising from the dissolution of the firm for rendition of accounts of the dissolved firm and to take the property of the rights therein as per the terms of the contract to which Chaman Lal was entitled to. Instead of filing a suit, they invoked the arbitration clause 16 for reference to resolve the dispute by an alternative resolution forum created by the parties. Since sub-section 3(a) of S.69 of the Partnership Act carved out an exception to the main part of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.69, there is no prohibition for the appellants to invoke clause 16 of the partnership deed and that, therefore, the suit filed under S.20 of the Act is maintainable.

5. Shri Satish Chandra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that "to sue" as envisaged in sub-section (1) and main part of sub-section (3) of S.69, includes entitlement to enforce the right created under the contract. Since the partnership firm was an unregistered one, the rights arising under the contract, namely, reference to the arbitration under clause 16 of the contract itself is a right to sue under the contract and that, therefore, the suit under S.20 of the Act is not maintainable.

6. The question, therefore, is whether the suit filed under S.20 of the Act is maintainable to work out the rights given to the parties under clause (a) to sub-section (3) of S.69 of the Partnership Act? Section 20 of the Arbitration Act provides that :

"20. Application to file in Court arbitration agreement. - (1) Where any persons have entered into an arbitration agreement before the institution of any suit with respect to the subject-matter of the agreement or any part of it, and where a difference has arisen to which the agreement applies, they or any of them, instead of proceeding under Chapter II, may apply to a Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates, that the agreement be filed in court.

(2) and (3) x x x x x x

(4) x x x x x x, the Court shall order the agreement to be filed, and shall make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the part