Vijay Barla S/O Late Shri Manak ... vs Pradeep Barla S/O Late Shri Manak ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2717 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 78/2019

Vijay Barla S/o Late Shri Manak Chand Barla, Aged About 51
Years, R/o 1-K-7, Ground Floor, Post Office Road, Dadabari, Kota
(Raj)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      Pradeep Barla S/o Late Shri Manak Chand Barla, Aged
        About 53 Years, R/o 1-K-7, First Floor, Post Office Road,
        Dadabari, Kota (Raj)
2.      Smt. Nirmala Dhariwal D/o Late Manak Chand Barla W/o
        Shri Subhash Dhariwal, R/o Makan No. 478, Gali No. 7,
        Kasturba Nagar, Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh)
3.      Smt. Manju Sanghvi D/o Late Manak Chand Barla W/o
        Shri Dr. Ashwin Sanghvi, R/o 25, Anupam Banglow,
        Shyamli Society, Nadiyad (Gujrat)
4.      Smt. Pooja Sarraf W/o Shri Vinay Sarraf, R/o 1430-B,
        Scheme No. 71 Dravid Nagar, Naale Ke Paas, Gumashta
        Nagar, Indore (Madhya Pradesh)
5.      Ankush Kadawat S/o Shri Anil Karawat, Care Of Gendalal
        Sampatraj,     Rajprakash          Kadawat          Brothers   Rampura,
        District Mandsore (Madhya Pradesh)
6.      Icici Bank Limited Through Branch Manager, Industrial
        Area Branch, Aerodrome Circle, Kota
7.      Stock Holding Corporation Of India Limited Through
        Branch Manager, Office At Mewada Plazza, Rawat Bhata
        Road, Shopping Centre, Kota
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Vijay For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

31/03/2022

(2 of 3) [CR-78/2019]

1. Petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed this revision petition

under Section 115 CPC feeling aggrieved by rejection of his

application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide order dated

14.02.2019 passed in civil suit No.55/2015 by the Court of

Additional District Judge No.2, Kota.

2. The relevant facts of the present case as culled out from the

record are that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for

partition wherein reliance has been placed on the will dated

06.07.2003 alleged to be executed by father Shri Manak Chand

Barla. Petitioner raised an objection that in the will itself, there is a

reference that in case of dispute, two persons namely, Shri

Subhash Dhariwal and Dr. Ashwin Sanghvi would act as arbitrators

and parties would abide by their decision. Petitioner submitted

that in view of such clause mentioned in the will, the civil court

has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit for partition and at

the most the plaintiff could have/ would have approached before

the arbitrators named in the application for resolution of dispute.

3. The trial court turned down such objections of petitioner and

dismissed his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide order

dated 14.02.2019.

4. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned

order.

5. It is not a case of petitioner that there is any arbitration

agreement between the parties but the case of petitioner is that

the reference of arbitrators made in the will be treated as

arbitration clause/agreement between the parties. Such

contention of counsel for petitioner does not find support with the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Vijay

Kumar Sharma Alias Manju vs. Raghunandan Sharma Alias

(3 of 3) [CR-78/2019]

Baburam & Ors. reported in [(2010) 2 SCC 486]. A unilateral

declaration made by father in the will that any future dispute

among sons should be settled by arbitrators named by him and

treated as an arbitration agreement among the children. Such

reference made by father at the most can be treated as his desire

but does not partake as an arbitration agreement between the

legatees. Since it is admitted case of parties that there is no

separate arbitration agreement between the parties, the trial court

has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in

dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The

impugned order is within parameters of law and finds support with

the judgment of Vijay Kumar Sharma (supra). Thus, there is no

merit in the instant revision petition and accordingly the same is

hereby dismissed.

6. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/11

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)