THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4312 of 2008 Date: 25.08.2009 Between: M/s. Sreenivas Estate Traders, Adoni, and others. ..Petitioners and Smt. V. Sarala and another. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4312 of 2008 ORDER: (Per GVS, J) The Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 04.08.2008 in I.A.No.71 of 2008 in O.S.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District. The said application was filed by the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents herein filed the suit for dissolution of first defendant partnership firm. Reserving their right to file written statement in the suit, defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed I.A.No.71 of 2008 seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration by invoking Clause 11 contained in the deed of partnership dated 25.11.1983. The trial Court on 04.08.2008 dismissed the said application on the ground that there is no consensus of the parties inasmuch as the application is filed only by three of the defendants. Clause 11 of partnership deed dated 25.11.1983 reads as under: 11. That in the event of any disputes arising among the parties hereto or their representatives, either during the continuance of this partnership or later regarding any matter touching the partnership business or as to the interpretation of the clauses mentioned herein or as to the rights, duties and liabilities of the parties hereto or their representatives, the same shall be referred to an Arbitrator or Arbitrators mutually agreed upon, whose award shall be binding on all those concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 submits that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that consensus of the parties is required for reference and also for selection of the arbitrators, whereas Clause 11 of the partnership deed contemplates that consensus is required only for naming the arbitrators. The partnership deed contemplates arbitration as it states that the matter may be referred to the arbitrator or arbitrators mutually agreed upon, which implies that the arbitrator would be appointed on the basis of consensus of the parties. However, the trial Court did not dismiss the application on the ground that there was no consensus for naming the arbitrator but the said application was dismissed on the ground that all the defendants have not sought for reference to arbitration and the application was filed only by three of the defendants. It can be seen from the record that the application in I.A.No.71 of 208 was filed only by defendant Nos.1 to 3, though there are other defendants in the suit. The other defendants were not impleaded as proforma respondents also in the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 submits that the other defendants have no objection for reference of the dispute to arbitration. However, there is nothing on record to show that the other defendants stated no objection inasmuch as they were not even impleaded either as the petitioners or the respondents to the said application and therefore, there is no opportunity for the other defendants to make such a submission. Inasmuch as all the defendants are not parties to the application, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. The impugned order dated 04.08.2008 in I.A.No.71 of 2008 in O.S.No.7 of 2008 does not warrant interference by this Court. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) 25th August, 2009 ____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) GHN