Murti Ram vs Shri Ram Parkash

This revision petition it directed against the order of the district Judge, Patiala dated May 18, 1985, whereby the order of the trial Court declining to stay the proceedings u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, (hereinafter called the Act) was maintained.

The Plaintiff-Respondent filed the suit for the dissolution of the partnership titled M/s Goel Masala Store, Sirhind Bazar, Patiala, and for the rendition of accounts thereof The Defendant moved the application u/s 34 of the Act for staying the proceedings in the suit and to direct the parties to go to the arbitrator in view of the clause in the partnership deed to the effect that in case of any controversy, dispute, misunderstanding or claim arising out of the said deed or relating to that contract or breach thereof, if not settled mutually between them, shall be got finalized subject to the provisions of the Act which shall be binding on both of them. That application has be*n declined by both the Courts below. According to the learned lower appellate Court, the Plaintiff was seeking rendition of ac-counts which could be gone into by the Court and not by the arbitrator. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Harinder Singh Randhawa v. Hardial Singh Dhillon (1984) 86 P. L. R. 744., Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

At the time of the motion hearing, it was stated that the suit did not relate to the rendition of accounts only as found by the Courts below.

4 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the suit not only the rendition of accounts, but the dissolution of the firm has also been prayed. According to the learned Counsel, even the dispute, as regards the tenancy is also to be settled in the suit itself

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

6 As regard this Court, it has been settled that the question of rendition of accounts could not be gone into by the arbitrator after the dissolution of the partnership, and has to be decided by the civil Court. Reference in this behalf may profitably be made to Harinder Singh Randhawa''s case (supra) No judgment taking a contrary view has been cited at the bar.

Conseqently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The parties have been directed to appear in the trial Court on November, 23, 1985. The records of the case be sent back fortwith.