Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 716 (HP)

Shamsher Singh v. HDB Financial Services Ltd.

2019-06-14

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails order dated 05.03.2019, vide which, an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the respondents herein, has been allowed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Shimla. 2. It appears that a suit was filed by the present petitioner before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Shimla. The present respondents were impleaded as defendants in the said suit. Before filing the written statement, the respondents filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for referring the matter to the Arbitrator, on the ground that the issue raised in the suit could not be adjudicated by way of a Civil Suit, as there was an agreement between the parties, which inter alia envisaged that in the event of any dispute between them, the same shall be settled by way of arbitration. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the learned Court below while allowing the said application, held that plaintiff had neither denied the existence of agreement, nor the factum of having taken loan from the defendants, but his only defence was that nothing was due from him to the defendants. After taking into consideration the said stand of the plaintiff, learned Court below allowed the application by holding that as there was an Arbitration Clause in the agreement entered into between the parties, the suit was liable to be returned back to the plaintiff for filing the same before the Arbitral Tribunal as per procedure. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed this petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. At the out-set, I may state that neither a copy of the plaint, nor the reply, if any, filed by the present petitioner to application filed by the respondents/defendants under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act stands appended with the present petition. On a query of the Court, response of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that after notice is issued and response submitted by the respondent, then the necessary documents shall be filed by the petitioner. On a query of the Court, response of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that after notice is issued and response submitted by the respondent, then the necessary documents shall be filed by the petitioner. The Court deprecates this kind of practice, because it is incumbent upon the petitioner to place on record all relevant documents at the first instance and it is not the discretion of the petitioner to place documents on record in a piecemeal. 5. Be that as it may, having perused the documents on record, this Court is of the view that there is no perversity in the impugned order. Learned Court below has rightly allowed the application so filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, because as there is an agreement entered into between the parties and the agreement envisages that in the event of any dispute, the same shall be referred for Arbitration, no perversity can be attributed to the order passed by the learned Trial Court, which on the strength of the terms of the Arbitration Clause in the agreement, has returned the plaint back to the plaintiff, so that the same could be filed before the Arbitral Tribunal as per procedure. 6. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application (s), if any.