./- A. S. B. HOH'BLB SHm DHmEWDRA anSHRA, J WHt Pctltion (Cl No. 7S5/2008 PETITIONER PLAOITIFF 1) 2) Shyainlal Dfacena S/o Jhaduram Dueena Aged about 55 years, RamBihari S/o Shyamlal Dbeena doshi Aged about 31 years, Both R/o Korba, Tahsil Korba, Distt'ict Korba. VE»8U8 RESPOiaDBIITS DEFEISDANTS Jhaduram Dixena S/o Cheenai'ain Dbceiia, Aged about71 years Sint Shakuntala Devi Dfacena W/o Jagdish Ptasad Dfacena Aged about32 years Ompmkash Dixena S/o Jhadurain Dtxeiia, Aged about 32 years, All R/o VSUage Sutarra Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (CG) Ramgopal Dbcena S/o Jhadui'aui Dixeiia, Aged about 42 years, R/o Korba, Tahsil KOrba, District Korba (CG) 18.3.2008 Shri Neeraj Choubey, counsel for fhe petltioner. The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of Ihe Constitution of India has impugned the order dated 20th November 2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Judge, Korba in CivU Suit No. 10A/04 whereby application (Annexiire P/3) of the petitioners under Section 41 read with Second Schedule of Indian Arbitration Act and Order 40 Rule 1 and Section. 151 of C.P.C. for appointment of receiver, has been rejected. .--r ./k- ^ vcf From perusal ofthe documents annexed with fhe petition, it appears fhat the petitioners had nioved an appUcation under Section 20 of fhe Indian Arbitration Act before the Court belo1iy for refemng the dispute arising out of fhe arbitration a@~eeinent to an arbita-ator on 20th February 1995 vlde Annexure P/2. In flie said proceedings, ftie petitioners also filed an application for appomtment of receiver on 21.2.1995 (Annexure P/3). The leamed Distnct Judge vide order of Annescure P/1 rejected the above application with an observation fliat fix>m perusal of fhe docunients prc^uced by ftie respeetive parties, it is found fhat Civll Suit No. 72/97 is pending in the Court of CivU Judge, Class-II, Katghora, which is in fhe evidence stage. By fhe above suit between the parties and their brofliers, a declaration has been sought that fhe partition effected betvyeen fhe parties is in accordance with law and fhe settlenient deed dated 6.4.1972 and parUtion deed dated 28.11.1975 are void. It also appears that fhe first appeal No. 439/1997 has been preferred in the Hlgh Court of M.P. at Jabalpur against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1997 passed by fhe Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Smt No.lO-A/97. Since the dispute bettveen the parties relates to niutual partltion and adjudication of fhe dispute requires recprding of detaUed evldence, in these circumstances, tiie conditions necessary for appointment of arbitrator do rwt exist and accordtngly, the application was rejected. Takuig into consideratlon the reasons assigned by fhe Court below for rejecting the application for appomtment of receiver and also a)nsidering Ihat an application for appointiiient ^^ ^u^e^^^. ^ ofarbitoratQr filed in fhe year 1995 was ultimateJy rejected by tiie trial Court in ttie year 2007 i.e. after 12 years, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. _——-—-~ .Sd/-.,;',','',:l:. ':^ DWrehdraMishra Judge