IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.4 of 2009 ----------- 1. M/s Chitra Developers & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sri Vikash Kumar, son of Someshwar Lal having its Office at 307, Adharshila Complex, South Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 2. Mr. Vikash Kumar, son of Sri Someshwar Lal, resident of 613B, Lotus Apartment, Road No. 1F, New Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, Patna. ……..Applicants versus 1. Dr. Priyaranjan Kumar Singh, son of late Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of village/Mohalla Patliputra, P.S. Patliputra, Town and District Patna. …. Opposite Party 3. M/s Apna Awas Construction Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh, having its office at 001, Sundaram Enclave, Kitab Bhawan Lane, North S.K. Puri, Patna-13. 4. Jitendra Kumar Singh, son of Shri Rup Narain Singh, resident of House No. 3A/24, Road No. 3A, Mahesh Nagar, P.O. Keshri Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, District Patna-24 for being added as opposite party No.2. …Intervenors-Opposite Parties ……. For the Applicants : M/s V. Nath, Ashok Kumar and Md. Walior Rahman, Advocates. For the Opp. Party : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha No.1, Advocate. For the Intervenors : Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar, Advocate. ……. 04/ 26.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the two applicants, learned counsel for the sole opposite party as well as learned counsel for the intervenors. 2. M/s Apna Awas Construction Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director have filed I.A. No. 6194 of 2009 for being impleaded as opposite parties to the instant request case. 3. It is claimed by the applicants that the sole opposite Party Dr. Priyaranjan Kumar Singh is the owner of the premises in question and he entered into a development agreement dated 01.09.2002 with the 2 applicants, who are developers with respect to the said premises. It is further submitted that Clause 28 of the said agreement provides that in case of any difference arising out of or relating to the aforesaid land and/or the building thereupon or arising out of this agreement will be settled by referring the dispute to the Arbitrators, one each to be nominated by the parties hereto and two together will select an Umpire, and their decision will be final and binding under the provision of the Indian Arbitration Act. It is also claimed that a dispute with regard to the said agreement arose between the parties and hence in accordance with the said arbitration clause the applicants sent a notice in regard thereto to the opposite party but despite lapse of more than 30 days, no action was taken by him and hence the instant request case was filed. 4. Although learned counsel for the opposite party denies the notice part of the claim of the applicants, but he agrees that an Arbitrator be appointed for settlement of their said dispute. However, learned counsel for the said opposite party further submits that he subsequently entered into a development agreement with respect to the same property with the intervenors vide development agreement dated 16.08.2008 without informing the latter about the earlier development agreement with the applicants. In the said circumstances, it is prayed that the intervenors be also impleaded as parties to the arbitral proceeding so that the entire matter may be thrashed out. This submission on behalf of the opposite party is fully supported by learned counsel for the intervenors. 5. Considering the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record and the provisions of law 3 applicable to the instant case, this Court appoints Mr. Mundrika Prasad, Retired District and Sessions Judge, presently residing in Flat no. 3 SFA- 3/21, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Bhutnath Road, Patna-26, as an Arbitrator for settling the dispute between the applicants and the opposite party with respect to the difference between them arising out of the development agreement dated 01.09.2002. Both the parties are directed to approach the said Arbitrator within a fortnight from today along with a copy of this order and the said Arbitrator will be at liberty to fix his remuneration, expenses, place and dates for hearing and deciding the arbitration proceeding. 6. So far the claim of the intervenors is concerned, it is quite apparent that in view the provision of section 11 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, in such a proceeding only the parties to the agreement in question, which in this case is 01.09.2002, have to take part for settling the dispute between them. Any stranger to the said agreement cannot be legally impleaded as a party to the arbitration proceeding for settlement of the dispute with regard to development agreement dated 01.09.2002. However, since the landlord, namely, the opposite party has entered into a fresh agreement dated 16.08.2008 for the same purpose with the intervenors without informing them regarding the earlier development agreement with the applicants dated 01.09.2002 and without informing the applicants with respect to the subsequent agreement dated 16.08.2008, which he entered with the intervenors, in the said circumstances, if any amount is due, the same is recoverable by the intervenors from the opposite party through a separate procedure provided under the law and 4 not in the instant proceeding. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6194 of 2009 stands disposed of. 7. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, this request case is disposed of. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the said Arbitrator immediately. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )