1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 239/2010. M/s. Garg Gas Agencies Bharat Gas … versus … Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 26, 2010. Heard Shri B.K. Gandhi, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.A. Mohta, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 89/2004 is already made time bound by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2007 in Writ Petition No. 644/2006. Suit filed by petitioners / plaintiffs is to direct respondent no.1 to treat his signature as valid on documents for himself and also for defendant no.2. The other partner in the Firm to whom LGP Agency has been given by respondent no.1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., i.e. respondent no.2 has filed an application for appointment of receiver making certain grievances. The petitioners moved application seeking stay of consideration of that application on the ground that the dispute of that nature is covered by the arbitration clause in partnership deed between the parties. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon 2 the judgment reported at AIR 2002 SC 404 (Smt. Kalpana Kothari .vrs. Smt. Sudha Yadav and others) in the matter. The Trial Court has after hearing the parties rejected that application. Petitioners contend that rejection is improper, because it overlooks the fact of existence of arbitration agreement between the petitioners and respondent no.2. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that, respondent no.1[defendant no.1] in suit is not party to that partnership deed and therefore the arbitration clause is not binding on him. I have considered the controversy. Application for appointment of receiver moved by respondent no.2 is pending before the Trial court in a expedited suit. The trial Court has found that petitioner has been unnecessarily postponing its consideration. It is further clear that that one of the parties to suit is not party to arbitration agreement. Hence, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the matter. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.