ORDER

1. The singular question arising for decision in these appeals is whether the subsequent application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking appointment of arbitrator and reference of dispute for adjudication, was hit by the bar contained in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2. The facts in all the three appeals are identical. It would, therefore, suffice to notice the facts in only one of the three cases. It appears that the respondent has entered into a contract with the Railways. He preferred some claim against the Railways which was turned down, consequent whereupon he made a demand for referring the claim for adjudication by arbitrator. That prayer was also refused and hence the respondent moved the civil court for appointment of arbitrator.

3. It also appears that during the pendency of the first application, yet another claim was preferred by the respondent which too was turned down by the Railways. The respondent sought for reference of the subsequent dispute also for adjudication by arbitrator and on that prayer having been turned down by the Railways, the respondent filed the subsequent petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court. It is the maintainability of the subsequent petition which was objected to by the appellant by placing reliance on Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The High Court has formed an opinion against the appellant Railways.

4. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as also the respondent appearing in person, we are satisfied that no fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court. In order to attract applicability of the bar enacted by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, it is necessary that the cause of action on which the subsequent claim is founded should have arisen to the claimant when he sought for enforcement of the first claim before any court. On the facts found and as recorded in the judgment of the High Court and with which we find no reason to differ, the second demand raised by the respondent was not available to be made a part of the claim raised in the first application. The bar enacted by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is clearly not attracted.

5. The appeals are devoid of any merit and are dismissed with costs.