IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3441 of 2009 KARAN VIJAY SINGH & ANR. Versus BAL MANOHAR JALAN & ANR. ----------- 06/ 24.02.2010 This petition has been filed on behalf of Karan Vijay Singh and Urvashi Kumari who were opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in Request Case no. 10 of 2008 to amend/modify/clarify order dated 13.07.2009 by which the aforesaid request case along with Request Case no. 74 of 2007 was disposed of after appointment of an arbitrator. 2. It transpires that Request Case no. 74 of 2007 was filed by Smt Indumati R.V.Singh for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute in view of Clause 29 of the Agreement dated 26.07.2001. In that case Sri Bal Manohar Jalan was the sole respondent. 3. It further transpires that Sri Bal Manohar Jalan filed Request Case no. 10 of 2008 against aforesaid Smt Indumati R.V.Singh as opposite party no.1, also impleading her children Karan Vijay Singh and Urvashi Kumari as opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the case, for appointment of an arbitrator for resolving the dispute in view of Clause 29 of the Agreement dated 26.07.2001. 4. In both cases Smt Indumati R.V.Singh and Sri Bal Manohar Jalan were parties and on 13.07.2009 when both the cases were jointly listed and heard by this court both of them agreed to the name of Justice Shashank Kumar Singh, a retired Judge of this Court to be appointed as an arbitrator to decide the said dispute 2 raised in both the cases and accordingly, the said prayer was allowed vide order dated 13.07.2009. 5. However, from the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases, it transpires that although Request Case no. 74 of 2007 was filed by only Smt Indumati R.V.Singh against Sri Bal Manohar Jalan, but in Request Case no. 10 of 2008 filed by Sri Bal Manohar Jalan apart from Smt Indumati R.V.Singh, there were two other opposite parties namely her children Karan Vijay Singh and Urvashi Kumari. The said opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were not noticed nor they had appeared through any learned counsel in the said Request Case no. 10 of 2008. 6. In the said circumstances, the said two persons namely, Karan Vijay Singh and Urvashi Kumari have filed the instant MJC case for amendment/modification/ clarification of order dated 13.07.2009 and learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and also in view of the specific decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kameshwar Das Agrawal & another vs Kiran Agrawal & others reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court cases page 155, no arbitrator can be appointed without hearing all the parties to the case. 7. Although learned counsel for opposite party no.1 vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners but in the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the settled principle of law, the said order dated 13.07.2009 so far it concerns, Request Case no. 10 of 2008 is recalled and the 3 petitioners of this case namely, Karan Vijay Singh and Urvashi Kumari who were opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in Request Case no. 10 of 2008 are directed to immediately appear in the said case and file their reply if required within one week from today. 8. Put up Request Case no. 10 of 2008 under the heading admission on 10.03.2010. Both the parties to the said request case are present in court through their learned counsel. Hence they must come prepared on the next date. 9. It may be noted that order dated 13.07.2009 so far it concerns, Request Case no. 74 of 2007 remains undisturbed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)