Manmohan Sarin, J. ( 1 ) BY this order, I would be disposing of IA 9094/95 and IA 11050a/95 filed by the petitioners. The first is an application under Order XIV Rule 5, Order XIV Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code seeking recasting of the issues as framed, and for treating the first proposed issue as a preliminary issue. Further prayer is made that the petition be set down for hearing for oral evidence. ( 2 ) THE second IA 11050a/95, is an application undersection 148, Civil Procedure Code seeking extension of time for filing the affidavit by way of evidence, till the decision of IA 9094/95. ( 3 ) FOR an appreciation of the petitioners s contentions in IA 9094/95, the facts in brief may be noted : (I) The petitionerss have filed the present OMP bearing No. 74 of 1994 under Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a declaration that the alleged agreement of reference dated 31st August, 1975, be declared to be illegal, void, non-existent and of no effect. (ii) The bone of contention between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 is shop No. 4788, Ram Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi. The respondent No. 1 claims that the said shop constituted the estate of the father Shri Raghunath Sahai, who died on 18. 8. 1975. There was an oral partition on 31. 8. 1975 between the heirs of late Sh. Raghunath Sahai. "the above shop respondent No. 1, claims fell to his share. It is further claimed that as the sons of respondent No. 1 were minors at that time and Shri Devi Sahai petitioners No. 1 and brother of the respondent No. 1, was carrying on business with his son Dhansi Ram in the said shop, it was agreed that the petitioners could run the business till Dhananjay son of the respondent No. l became 25 years old. However, an agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 was drawn reciting the factum of the oral partition and incorporating the above agreement. It also contained a Clause for reference of disputes to the arbitration of Shri Krishan Kumar Mehrotra. In the event, respondent No. l had invoked the arbitration agreement. However, an agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 was drawn reciting the factum of the oral partition and incorporating the above agreement. It also contained a Clause for reference of disputes to the arbitration of Shri Krishan Kumar Mehrotra. In the event, respondent No. l had invoked the arbitration agreement. (iii) The case of the petitioners, on the other hand is that Shri Devi Sahai was a tenant of the shop under Smt. Triveni Devi and was carrying on his sole proprietorship cloth business under the name and style of Sohan Lal Ram Phal. "the petitioner Devi Sahai had also entered into a partnership with one Sadhu Ram Jhaggarwal. "the subsequent induction of Dhansi Ram petitioner No. 2 and Smt. Maya Bansal (wife of another son) as partners and retirement of Sadhu Ram Jhaggarwal are mentioned. "the petitioners claim that the said shop was in the sole tenancy of Devi Sahai. It did not constitute the estate of late Shri Raghunath Sahai. Petitioners deny the oral partition as claimed by the respondent No. l under which the shop fell to the latter s share. The petitioners also vehemently deny the agreement dated 31. 8. 1975, reciting the factum of the alleged partition and containing the arbitration agreement. The petitioners claim that the alleged agreement of reference is a false and fabricated document. It is claimed that respondent No. l, who is an Advocate and brother of late Devi Sahai and uncle of Dhansi Ram used to appear for the income tax assessments proceedings of petitioners No. l and of the registered partnership firm in the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1970-71 and in other assessment years himself and through his junior. It is claimed that the respondent No. 1, who used to obtain blank signatures of the Devi Sahai and Dhansi Ram, has fabricated the alleged agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 on one of these blank papers. The alleged agreement is said to be non-existent and wholly void. ( 4 ) VIDE orders dated 11. 8. 1995, passed in las. 6694/94 and IA 78/94, the proceedings before the Arbitrator were stayed. ( 5 ) THE following issues were framed in OMP 74 of 1994 : 1. Whether the agreement dated 31-8-1975 is false and fabricated as alleged? OPP 2. Relief. ( 4 ) VIDE orders dated 11. 8. 1995, passed in las. 6694/94 and IA 78/94, the proceedings before the Arbitrator were stayed. ( 5 ) THE following issues were framed in OMP 74 of 1994 : 1. Whether the agreement dated 31-8-1975 is false and fabricated as alleged? OPP 2. Relief. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitionerss is that the aforesaid issues do not reflect the material points and issues in the OMP. The petitioners, therefore, pray that issues be recasted as under: 1. Whether the alleged agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 can be used for any purpose? OPR 2. Whether the alleged agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 containing the arbitration Clause was executed between the parties? OPR 3. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved whether the agreement is null and void for the reasons stated in the petition under Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. 4. Relief. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel urged that in the petition it had been expressly pleaded that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and alternatively it was pleaded that the alleged agreement has been scribed on a blank piece of paper containing petitioners signatures taken from some other file and was null and void. Counsel further argued that since the arbitration agreement for reference of disputes has been set up by the respondent, it is the respondent, who should in the first instance prove the existence of the agreement and it is only thereafter the question of the validity or invalidity of the agreement would come up for consideration. ( 8 ) ON a careful perusal of the pleadings in the petition, I find that the petitioners in para 5 of the petition has made a categorical averment that the respondent No. 1 who used to appear in the income tax assessment proceedings had obtained signatures of petitionerss 1 and 2 on blank papers and has fabricated the alleged agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 on one of those blank papers. In view of this categorical assertion, it is apparent that the petitionerss do not dispute the signatures on the said document. Accordingly the issue as framed by the Court namely "whether the agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 is false and fabricated as alleged? OPP?" is perfectly in order. 8. 1975 on one of those blank papers. In view of this categorical assertion, it is apparent that the petitionerss do not dispute the signatures on the said document. Accordingly the issue as framed by the Court namely "whether the agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 is false and fabricated as alleged? OPP?" is perfectly in order. Once the signatures are admitted, the onus to prove would shift on petitioners, who must show that the agreement was a false and fabricated one and their signatures obtained in the manner as alleged by them. ( 9 ) THE next question which requires consideration is whether issues need to be recastedand additional issues needs to be framed. The legal plea is that the arbitration agreement dated 31. 8. 1975, even if proved, is null and void, unenforceable and inadmissible in evidence. The objection as to the inadmissibility of the document is on account of it being unstamped. This liable to be considered at a later stage. Although the above legal plea and objections, could be urged and considered by the Court under the head "relief", it would be proper to frame an additional issue being issue No. 2 as under : "2. In case the answer to issue No. l is in the negative, then whether the agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 is void and unenforceable as contended by the petitioners? OPP" ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioners has cited authorities that the document 31. 8. 1975 is in the nature of a partition deed or family settlement which would require registration and is not admissible in evidence. These authorities are not relevant at the present stage and for the disposal of application. These can be considered later. ( 11 ) I find that the proceedings in the present case have been considerably delayed already. Petitioner was directed to file evidence by way of affidavit on 11. 8. 1995. The scope of the proceedings under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is limited in nature and lies in respect of existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The case, therefore, requires to be disposed of expeditiously without brooking any further delay. The relief sought in the present application and the prayer for listing the case for oral evidence is intended to delay the proceedings. I, therefore, decline the prayer for the case being fixed for oral evidence. The case, therefore, requires to be disposed of expeditiously without brooking any further delay. The relief sought in the present application and the prayer for listing the case for oral evidence is intended to delay the proceedings. I, therefore, decline the prayer for the case being fixed for oral evidence. ( 12 ) LET evidence by way of affidavit be now filed by the petitionerss within two weeks and the respondent would file its counter-evidence by way of affidavit within two weeks thereafter. It would be open to the parties to cross-examine the deponents of the respective affidavits by way of evidence. ( 13 ) THE application is, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid directions and the issues stand recasted as under : 1. Whether the agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 is false and fabricated as alleged? OPP 2. In case the answer to Issue No. I is in the negative, then whether the agreement dated 31. 8. 1975 is void and unenforceable as contended by the petitioners? 3. Relief.