1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 713 OF 2008 M/s. GTS Pvt. Ltd., Company registered under Company's Act (represented herein by Mr. S.S.N. Murthy, Manging Director) having Office at 54-11-16, Sweet Home Apts., Opp. Rosary Convent, Isukathota, Vishakhapatnam, 530 022. .... Petitioner. V e r s u s 1. M/s. Jena Enterprises, Proprietary concern, Having office at 2nd floor, Pelican Bldg. Opp. Lohia Maidan, (deleted) Margao, Goa. 2. Mr. Soumit Jena, Proprietor of M/s. Jena Enterprises, (deleted) Having office at 2nd floor, Pelican Bldg. Opp. Lohia Maidan, Margao, Goa. 3. Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd., Having office at 225-C, Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020. .... Respondents. Mr. P.A. Kamat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. E.O. Mendes, Advocate for Respondent no.3. CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE: 15TH SEPTEMBER,2010. 2 Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Kamat learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Mendes learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. 2. Rule. By Consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges order dated 14.10.2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge-I, Fast Track Court, South Goa Margao in Special Civil Suit no.69/2006 by which the learned Judge has ordered deletion of respondent no.3, who was joined as defendant no.3 in the suit filed by the original petitioner herein only against two defendants. Respondent no.3 was later joined as defendant no.3 in the suit. 3 4. Respondent no.3 filed application dated 19.1.2007 for referring the dispute to arbitration on the ground that agreement dated 31/1/2006 entered between the parties contained arbitration clause. The learned trial judge by the impugned order has ordered deletion of respondent no.3 from the cause title of the suit. 5. Mr. Kamat learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned judge ought to have decided the application on merits in one way or the other and in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 the trial court could not have ordered deletion of respondent no.3 without an application being filed to that effect. 6. Mr. Mendes, learned advocate for respondent no.3 submits that the trial court has inherent powers to delete respondent no.3, since there were already arbitration 4 proceedings pending between the plaintiff and defendant no.3. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.3, I am to the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. While dealing with an application under the said Act the trial Court was expected to pass an order either granting or refusing the application. While deciding such an application the trial court could have exercised jurisdiction to delete respondent no.3 from the suit. On this count alone the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 9. The trial Court is directed to decided the 5 application dated 19/1/2007 on merits. Needless to mention that in the event defendant no.3 desires to get itself deleted from the cause title of the suit, it is at liberty to file appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall also deal with the same on merits. 10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. 11. Interim order dated 26.11.2008 granted by this Court stands vacated. 12. The parties either personally or through their advocates shall appear before the the trial Court on 4/10/2010 at 10 a.m. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-