Mohioder Narain ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated l2th April, 1983, passed by Mr. R. K Jain Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, on an application under Order 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was tiled on or about 13th December, 1982 wherein a prayer was made that there should be a straightaway reference to the arbitrators as contemplated by Section 20 of Indian Arbitration Act. ( 2 ) THE partnership deed dated 1st February, 1971 in connection with which the reference was sought under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, contains the arbitration clause, which is clause 12 thereof. The said clause reads as under :- "12. That on the event of the dispute arising between the partners with regard to the contents hereof or any of the partnership affairs during the continuance of the partnership or on or after its dissolution, the same shall be settled by reference to arbitration. In this matter the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act for the time being in force shall apply. " A perusal of this clause shows that disputes arising between the partners after dissolution of the partnership, are to be settled by reference to arbitration. Mr. P. L. Kalra appearing for the petitioner, refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Erach F. D. Mehta v. Minoo F D. Mehta1 wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with a provision of a partnership which was to the effect that "all disputes and questions whatsoever which shall either during the partnership or afterwards arise between the partners. . . . . shall be REFERRED TO to arbitration. " ( 3 ) IN view of this admission, no point would have been served by recording evidence in this case as the matter appears to be covered by the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court. ( 4 ) MR. S. K. Tiwari appearing for the respondent, has fairly conceded to this position, and has said that the matter may be REFERRED TO to arbitration by me. ( 5 ) THE petitioner Ram Avtar Gupta has already named his arbitrator Chandan Mal Ratusaria, who is the brother-in law of the petitioner. Mr. ( 4 ) MR. S. K. Tiwari appearing for the respondent, has fairly conceded to this position, and has said that the matter may be REFERRED TO to arbitration by me. ( 5 ) THE petitioner Ram Avtar Gupta has already named his arbitrator Chandan Mal Ratusaria, who is the brother-in law of the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Tiwari on instructions says that the arbitrator for Jeoti Prashad, respondent, would be Gulal Chand Gupta, resident of C-l/13, Model Town, Delhi-9, who is the father-in-law of Ram Bhagat, son of Jeoti Prasad. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY the matter is REFERRED TO to arbitration of the above said two named arbitrators, who shall proceed to deal with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. ( 7 ) THE revision petition is allowed, and in view of the order passed today. Suit No. 16 of 1978 dated l2th January, 1971 woulc stand disposed of. No order as to costs.