'. Jhadoko Ram, 'IONERS Defe‘nants) retza ' wakahooul o-ou Io M3 03' s 0 { , HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT RE AT BIA$P WRIT PETITIOIg/gaw% Oof'200 xgnu, sari .of (Shr Cheenérdfn Diha, agé‘ci'abom' 9 yrs, ea ‘ /2. Jadish Prasa Dixenu, son 10 hri Jhudo‘o am iena, age g d f S R DX d aouT 52 year. gl i g Om Pmkash Diixena, son of Shr Jhadoo m Dixena, d aou 4 ears. 6 y No é illge .1 To 3 are rsidents of Va ufarr ehil KTor,‘ , istric cr / Shk D‘e‘v 4 iyali ix Ramoal Dix‘na, age gau‘r ~ earsgresidet‘r of Sva—mang oad a,Tesil ‘& oasm ‘ o _ Rei-s maiiff Vs / Lm D f f hri 1.axi Devi ixena, wie o S Sy g e ed b 62 harn Ll Dixna, ag ’aoU‘r eas yr; ur'awati Dixena wie o \Sr' ombihari Dlxena aed aout 4 R g b 2 year‘s rSInfs of Korba Tesil Both ede h & “h I i ‘ l N T LUR 8 i i' I 1 D ‘ I (d (l BM M o T Q ' € l b sf Rq é d§é bt Sq Ts 2¢ghq Dt iKbMce): 7 wi'fe"; Cf Shri gp 7 é d bd 47 I ryki hila“ R, Korb"h w Korba (CG) skoNDEN (iwg ZDé f f hi’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAmiAT BILASPUR 1 WRIT PET1T10N(227)N0 186(9/2008 ETITIONERS V r § / ‘ I ‘bk Jagdlsh Prssad Dlxena and others Versus Laxmi Devi Dixena and anr. ‘ 1 ESPéiVDENTs B- ’BLE SHRI N K AGARWAL, J f ' _ _ _ , . l RESENT - % hr1 B P Sharma Advocate for the pet1t1oners S HON P S Ihr1 S Mane] Paranjpe Advocate for the respondents ORAL ORDER (8—3v2011) Instant pet1t1on calls 1n questlon legahty and proprlety of the order dated 18 2 2008 passed 1n C1V11 Sult No 15— ‘ A/2008 by the D1str1ct Judge Korba Facts of the case 1n brlef are as under:- The plaintiffs/respondents herein have‘filed an application nder Section 2o of the Indian Arbitratidn Act 1940. brlefly ‘the Act’) for reference of the dlspute for arb1trat10n The apphcatlon wasxreglstered as su1t Durmg pendency of the above su1t, respondents have preferred‘an pplication 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 pplication filed under Section 2O of the Act directed the parties to propose name of the arbitrator so‘ that the matter can be referred for arbitration. hri BP Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners ould submit the order of reference can only be passed ‘ under Sectlon 2O of the Act and w1thout allowlng the main app11cat1on d1rect10n to propose name of arbitrator 1s ’ ' v \_ l premature masmuch as such d1rect10n can only be g1ven ‘ by the trial Court 1f 1t 1s found that the matter can be P R u ( a a S w tr r i l ‘ ‘ i . j, ie orr. ilegaliand deserves to be set aside. \b3 On the other hand, Shri Manoj Paranpe learned counsel for the respondents supported the mpugnd de o t o th a’ r o o an f Befre directing o prpose e name of arbitrtor, the Coult has t decide Whether or nt the matter c be referred for arbitration under Section 20 o the Act. Without there beig any order passed unde Section 2O of n r i f s nv s o th f illegal gad deserves to be set aside; In View of above, the petition is allowed Te order . h , on e a rce t r u a li un to . ct i ro n l o impugned is set aside. However lokig to th fct that the matter is pending since 1995, it is dietd tha the tial cort shll decide respondents’ appcation der Secin 20 of the A wthin a period of six months fm the date f receipt of copy of this order. Pe o c artis are also directed to remain present befre the Distrit Judge on 1 1—4-201 1. S- N.. rawal Judge referr§d to arbitrao and as such the qder mpugned is ‘ l the Act, such drection under Se‘ction 151 o C.P.C. i ot ustainable in law. The rder impugned on e ace is d/ l K Ag ‘1 l