High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Kaur Chand & Anr v. Gurcharan Singh - CR-1568-2006  RD-P&H 1905 (22 March 2006)
CIVIL REVISION NO.1568 OF 2006
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 21, 2006
Kaur Chand and another
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
The petitioners, who are the defendants in the main suit, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 7.2.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Bathinda, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 8 read with Sections 5 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for stay of the suit and to refer the parties to arbitration, has been dismissed.
2. In this case, the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the respondent illegally and forcibly from the shop in question except in due course of law. The respondent claimed to be in possession of the shop in question as a partner under the partnership deed executed between the parties. The petitioners filed an application in the aforesaid suit stating that as per Clause 14 of the partnership deed, photo-copy of which has been filed along with the plaint, CIVIL REVISION NO.1568 OF 2006 (2)
there was an arbitration clause between the parties, therefore, the suit should be stayed and the parties be directed to go in arbitration.
3. The trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that not only the original agreement or its duly certified copy has been produced, but in view of sub-section(3) of Section 8 of the Act, the petitioners may initiate arbitration proceedings irrespective of the fact that the proceedings are pending before the judicial authority. It has been observed that the relief claimed in the suit is not of such a nature, which is referable to the arbitration. The respondent is seeking only the relief of permanent injunction which is civil right.
4. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned order, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the superintending powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mere existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the civil Court automatically. In this case, the respondent is enforcing his civil right in the suit for permanent injunction filed by him. His only prayer is that he may not be dispossessed from the shop in question forcibly and illegally except in due course of law.
In my opinion, such disputes cannot be referred to arbitration. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
5. Dismissed. March 21, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.