Bombay High Court
Laxminarayan Pareshwarlal ... vs Pravin S/O Prithviraj Jaiswal And ... on 7 March, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
959-J-CRA-92-16 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2016
Laxminarayan Pareshwarlal Jaiswal
aged about 65 years, Occ.Agriculturist &
Business, R/o Shrawagi Plots, Opp. Dargah,
Near Tower, Umri Road, Akola,
Tah. And District Akola ... Applicant
-vs-
1. Pravin s/o Prithviraj Jaiswal
aged about 37 years, Occ. Business,
R/o At Post Pinjar, Tah. Barshitakli,
District Akola.
2. Pushpalata wd/o Devkinanadan Jaiswal,
aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
3. Sushilkumar s/o Devkinandan Jaiswal
aged about 41 years, Occ. Agriculturist &
Business.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 R/o At Post Pinjar,
Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola. ...non-applicants.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2017
Pravin s/o Prithviraj Jaiswal
aged about 37 years, Occ. Business,
R/o At Post Pinjar, Tah. Barshitakli,
District Akola. ... Applicant
-vs-
1. Laxminarayan Pareshwarlal Jaiswal
aged about 65 years, Occ.Agriculturist &
Business, R/o Shrawagi Plots, Opp. Dargah,
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:08:25 :::
959-J-CRA-92-16 2/5
Near Tower, Umri Road, Akola,
Tah. And District Akola.
2. Pushpalata wd/o Devkinanadan Jaiswal,
aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
3. Sushilkumar s/o Devkinandan Jaiswal
aged about 41 years, Occ. Agriculturist &
Business.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 R/o At Post Pinjar,
Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola. ...non-applicants.
Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for applicant in CRA No.92/2016.
Shri R. R. Dawda, Advocate for non-applicant No.1 in CRA No.92/2016 and
for applicant in CRA No.16/2017.
Shri N. Jaiswal, Advocate for non-applicant No.1 in CRA No.16/17.
Shri G. M. Kubade, Advocate for non-applicant Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : March 07, 2017
Common Judgment :
In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, both these civil
revision applications are being decided by this common judgment.
The applicants are aggrieved by the order passed by the trial
Court below Exhibits-24 and 27 by which the applications filed by them for
referring the proceedings to arbitration have been rejected.
2. Facts relevant for adjudicating the present proceedings are that
the applicant in C.R.A. No.92 of 2016 had filed Special Civil Suit No.24 of
2001 for partition and separate possession of joint family property. In said
959-J-CRA-92-16 3/5
suit the parties arrived at compromise and on 18/03/2011 the suit was
disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. It was agreed that the suit
properties were joint family properties and each party would be given a share
for the same to the extent of 20%. There were other terms that were also
agreed between the parties. According to non-applicant Nos.2 and 3, the
applicants herein tried to disturb their possession and hence said non-
applicants filed suit for permanent injunction being R.C.S. No.74 of 2016. In
said suit the present applicants filed applications below Exhibits-24 and 27
praying therein that the proceedings be referred for arbitration in view of
Clause-10 in the compromise petition. By the impugned order, the trial
Court rejected the said applications.
3. Shri A. M. Ghare and Shri R. R. Dawda, learned counsel for the
applicants, submitted that clauses at Sr. Nos.8, 9 and 10 were required to be
read independently and when the same were so read, it was clear that the
relief sought in the suit filed by the non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 was required
to be adjudicated through arbitration. They submitted that the trial Court by
misconstruing the aforesaid terms, wrongly refused to refer the proceedings
for arbitration. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel placed
reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench in Parcel Carriers (India) Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of India and ors. 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 993.
959-J-CRA-92-16 4/5
4. Shri G. M. Kubade, learned counsel for non-applicant Nos.2 and 3,
supported the impugned order. He submitted that the compromise petition
had to be read as a whole and on such reading it was clear that the subject
matter of the suit was not covered by any arbitration clause. He submitted
that the trial Court rightly considered the legal position and passed the
impugned order. He therefore, submitted that there was no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.
5. After hearing the respective counsel for the parties and after
perusing the documents placed on record I find that the trial Court has
rightly taken into consideration the entire compromise petition and has
thereafter held that when clauses 8, 9 and 10 are read as a whole, then only
certain disputes between the parties were required to be referred for
arbitration. The suit as filed was for permanent injunction seeking to
restrain the defendant-applicant from disturbing the possession of plaintiffs.
Clause-8 of the compromise petition deals with the valuation of suit property
and if appropriate valuation was not arrived at, the dispute in that regard
was to be determined through arbitration. As per clause 9, the parties in
possession were required to give accounts after which the profits were to be
distributed. Clause-10 speaks about the aspect where the properties cannot
be partitioned and in case of dispute in that regard the same was to be
resolved through arbitration. Considering the nature of reliefs sought in the
959-J-CRA-92-16 5/5
suit, I do not find that the same is required to be settled or sorted out
through arbitration. There is no agreement to refer the dispute with regard
to the subject matter of the suit through arbitration. In view of these facts,
ratio of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel by the applicants
cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. Hence, in absence of any jurisdictional error, I do not find that
any case for interference has been made out. The civil revision applications
are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants seek continuation
of ad interim relief granted on 07/12/2015. Ad interim relief granted earlier
shall continue for the period of eight weeks from today and shall cease to
operate automatically thereof.
JUDGE
Asmita
