IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37774 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.8.2009 IN I.A.NOS.709/2005 & 306/2007 IN OS.276/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- THOMAS VARGHESE, S/O.C.V. VARGHESE, “GRACE VILLA”, MOOSAVARIKUNNU, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GIRIJA SANKARA BHATTATHIRI, S/O. A.P. GOPALAKRISHNA BHATTATHIRI, ADIMUTTATHU MADAM, BUDHANOOR.P.O, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN MS.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT AISWARYA, KALLADIKKODE, PALAKKAD. 2. HAIKKAI RUBBER, 3/980, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLAVAKKODE. 3. CATHOLIC CYRIAN BANK LTD., PALAKKAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37774 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.276 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Palakkad. First respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents the codefendants in the suit. Suit was one for dissolution of a partnership firm and settlement of accounts. After filing of the written statement resisting the suit claim, petitioner/second defendant moved two applications, one for amending his written statement to incorporate a plea that the partnership deed provides for dissolution of disputes by way of arbitration and another for passing orders of reference under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act. The applications were opposed to by the first respondent/plaintiff. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed both the applications vide common P8 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. W.P.(C).No.37774 of 2009 - O 2 3. Mandate under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is that the party who places reliance on any arbitration clause in any agreement in respect of which a suit or proceeding is filed before the civil court has to apply for making such a reference not later than submitting his first statement on the substance in dispute in other words before delivering his written statement to the suit claim. In fact there is no absolute embargo interdicting the court from entertaining a suit in respect of which the parties have entered into an agreement to resolve the disputes if any mutually by way of arbitration. But, however, if any of the parties to such an agreement before delivering of his defence bring to the notice of the court the existence of the arbitration agreement the court has to pass appropriate orders under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. After delivering the defence any request made for reference to arbitration seeking amendment of the written statement already filed raising the plea based on an arbitration agreement cannot be entertained. There is no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P8 order. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-