^f ^ -^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION ^'NO.MS~ of 2008 PETITCONERS (Defendants) ^ ^^'.^ ^if^ .^..^fr"^ ^ <f ^' ^^ ^h\ ^ ^ ^ ./ 1. Jhja3oo Ram bixena, son of Shri Cheenaram Dixena. aged about 90 /eo.rs. 2. Smt. Shakuntala Devi bixena, wife of Shri Jagdish Prasad Dixena, aged about 45 years. ^.';" ....Si^" ^^'r>^, ^^' ...^' ^ v ^c^y y ^..-^^ ^' 3. Om Prakash bixena, son of Shri ^ 'A Jhadoo Ram bixena, aged about ^ 46 years. No.l to 3 are residents of Village Sutarra, Tehsil Katghora, now Tehsil Podi Uprora, District Korba (CG) 4. Ramgopal Dixena, son of Shri ^r- Jhaduram Dixena, aged about 5^T years, resident of Korba, Tehsil & C)istrict Korba (CG) vs RESPONDENTS rPlaintiffs) 1. Shyam Lal Dixena; son of Shri Jhadu Ram Dixena, aged about 68 years. 2.Rambihari Dixena, son of Shri Jhadu Ram Dixena, aged about 45 years. Both residents of Korba, Tehsil <& District Korba (CG) WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 1915/2008 \ f PETITIONERS Smt. Shakuntala Devi Dbcena and others Versus RESPONDENTS Shyam Lal Dixena and another SB:- HON»BLESHRIN.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (8-3-2011) 1. Instant petition calls in question legality and propriety of the order dated 18-2-2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 10- A/2008 by the District Judge, Korba. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- 2. The plaintiffs/respondents herein have filed an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (briefly 'the Act?) for reference of the dispute for arbitration. The application was registered as suif. During pendency of the above suit, respondents have preferred an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for immediate appointment of an arbitrator. The trial Court without entering into merits of the main application filed under Section 20 of the Act directed the parties to propose name of the arbitrator so that the matter can be referred for arbitration. 3. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit, the order of reference can only be passed under Section 20 of the Act and without allowing the main application, direction to propose name of arbitrator is premature inasmuch as such direction can only be given by the trial Court if it is found that the matter can be ~ :; % 1 ^1^.:^' referred to arbitrator and as such the order impugned is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. 5. Before directing to propose the name of arbitrator, the Court has to decide whether or not the matter can be referred for arbitration under Section 20 of the Act. Without there being any order passed under Section 20 of the Act, such direction under Section 151 of C.P.C. is not sustainable in law. The order impugned on the face is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 6. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The order iinpugned is set aside. However, looking to the fact that the matter is pending since 1995, it is directed that the trial court shall decide respondents' application under Section 20 of the Act within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Parties are also directed to remain present before the District Judge on 11-4-20 11. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge w f/