Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURENDRA SINGH versus CIVIL JUDGE AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surendra Singh v. Civil Judge And Another - WRIT - C No. 16185 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6816 (28 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16185 of 2006

Surendra Singh

Versus

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gorakhpur & Anr.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent no.1 to decide the application moved by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Suit No. 557 of 2005, Surendra Singh Vs. Shreem Investments.

In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the suit along with an application for interim relief. The respondent no.2 herein moved an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application of the respondent no.2 had been decided wherein the learned Civil Court has decided that the matter may be referred to the arbitration in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and the suit be kept pending with a further direction to file Award before the Court. Such a course is not permissible in law once the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is accepted, the plaint stands rejected and the observations made by the learned Civil Court that the suit remains pending is meaningless. Therefore, in such a fact situation, we cannot direct the Civil Court to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we clarify that in case the petitioner moves a proper application under Section 9 of the Act 1996 for interim relief till the Arbitrator is appointed, the Competent Court may consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed.

28.03.2006

AHA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.