CIVIL REVISION NO.136 OF 2004 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 20, 2008 Harish Kumar Khanna .....Petitioner VERSUS Krishan Kumar ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Revisions No.136 and 137 of 2004 (Harish Kumar Khanna Vs. Krishan Kumar). Harish Kumar, petitioner, filed a suit for dissolution/winding up of partnership firm, named M/s International Automobiles. The firm is a partnership concern constituted vide deed dated 10.6.1987. The suit was for rendition of the accounts of the firm and for permanent injunction restraining respondent, Krishan Kumar, himself or through his son for doing anything on behalf of the CIVIL REVISION NO.136 OF 2004 :{ 2 }: firm or for operating the bank accounts, alongwith an application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC was also filed for appointment of a Receiver to take charge of the business. The application was contested by raising a preliminary objection that suit is not maintainable. By making reference to two arbitration agreements, it is pleaded that any dispute arising out of the partnership business is to be referred for arbitration to the sole arbitrator to be mentioned mutually by the parties whose decision is to be final and binding on both the partners. Both the petitioner and the respondent are real brothers and equal partners in the said concern. The Civil Judge, after appreciating the respective contentions, called both the parties to file a list of persons to be appointed as a Receiver within seven days from the date of order, failing which the Court was to appoint a person of his own as a Receiver. Krishan Kumar, respondent, filed an appeal against the said order and the Appellate Court accepted the same and set-aside the application for ad-interim injunction. The said order passed by the Appellate Court is impugned through Civil Revision No.136 of 2004. Vide impugned order passed in Civil Revision No.137 of 2004, by the Civil Judge, Ludhiana, the respondent was restrained from disposing of assets and property belonging to the partnership firm, which was again reversed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana by accepting the appeal and dismissing the application, seeking ad- interim injunction. While doing so, the Appellate Court noticed that that partnership concern is covered by the arbitration clause contained in the partnership deed and defendant, Krishan Kumar, CIVIL REVISION NO.136 OF 2004 :{ 3 }: had moved an application under Section 8 of the Act for referring the matter to the arbitrator. The Court accordingly viewed that the Trial Court was not justified in considering the application for grant of ad- interim injunction. This order is, thus, impugned by Harish Kumar by filing the abovesaid Revision Petition. Mr.Amit Jain, appearing for the petitioner in both the revision petitions, by referring to Section 42 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) would contend that the application under Section 8 of the Act filed by the respondent- defendant would be maintainable before the Trial Court and the action on the part of respondent-defendant to file application under Section 11 of the Act would not be maintainable. This submission made by the learned counsel would not advance his case in any manner. Indeed the respondent-defendant had filed an application before the Trial Court for referring the matter to the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act. The counsel himself has conceded that in view of Section 42 of the Act, this application would be maintainable and well within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to deal with the same. If that be so, the Trial Court, in my view, could have passed the interim order appointing the Receiver or the order restraining the respondent-defendant from disposing of the property, if the Court had decided to dismiss the application under Section 8 of the Act, filed by the respondent-defendant. The submission that such an application for appointment of an Arbitrator would not lie before the Trial Court can also not be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. There is, thus, no merit in both the revision petitions. The CIVIL REVISION NO.136 OF 2004 :{ 4 }: Appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the Trial Court on well considered reasons, which would not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. May 20, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE