IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5248 OF 2002

Devinder Singh Puri … Appellant Vs. Birinder Singh Puri (dead by LRs. Mrs. Daljit Puri and Others) and others … Respondents

O R D E R  

The  appellant  is  the  son  of  the  deceased  first respondent. The first respondent claiming to be the sole proprietor of M/s. B.S. Puri & Co., filed a petition under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’ for short) praying for the award dated 29.12.1993 passed by the sole arbitrator (third respondent herein) in regard to disputes  between  M/s.  B.S.  Puri  &  Co.  and  the  second respondent,  be  made  a  rule  of  the  court.  In  the  said petition,  the  petitioner  was  described  thus  :  “Birinder Singh Puri, 225/18-A, Chandigarh, Proprietor M/s. B.S.Puri & Co.”.

1

2. In the said proceedings, the appellant herein made an application  under  Order  1  Rule  10(2)  of  Civil  Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party. The appellant alleged that ‘M/s. B.S.Puri & Co.’ was a partnership firm of which his father, himself and his brother were the partners, and that his father had filed the petition under section 14(2) and  section  17 of the  Act by misleading  the Court that ‘M/s. B.S.Puri & Co.’ -- the claimant under the Arbitration Award was a proprietary concern. He alleged that instead of showing the claimant as a partnership firm, his father had tampered and fabricated records to show that M/s. B.S.Puri & Co. was a proprietary concern. He contended that as a partner of the firm of M/s. B.S.Puri & Co. he was entitled to  be  heard  in  the  matter  and  therefore  he  should  be impleaded as a party.

3. The  said  application  was  resisted  by  the  first respondent. The trial court dismissed the said application by order dated 23.12.2000. In the course of its order, the trial court referred to the fact that the appellant had earlier  filed  an  application  for  impleadment  and  that application had been rejected; that a review petition filed by him was also rejected; and that the revision petition filed by him against the said order had also been disposed

2

of. The trial court also noted that the appellant had also filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm of M/s. B.S.Puri & Co. and rendition of accounts. The trial court held that as first respondent had been recorded as the sole proprietor of claimant in the Arbitration Award and the claim of the appellant as to status as partner had not  been  adjudicated  or  declared  by  any  court,  he  was neither  a  necessary  party  nor  a  proper  party  to  the proceedings.

4. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition  No.243/2001  before  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High Court. The High Court by its order dated 1.5.2001 dismissed the application. It held that the second application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was an abuse of process of law. It confirmed the finding that he was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

5. The  contention  of  the  appellant  is  that  he  is  a partner  of  M/s.  B.S.Puri  &  Co.  and  therefore  he  was entitled to be impleaded as a party in the petition filed by his father under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Act. He also contends that he has filed a separate petition under

3

sections 30, 33 and 16 of the Act for setting aside the award on the ground that the Arbitrator had misconducted the  proceedings  by  not  acceding  to  his  request  for impleading him as a party. The question that arises for consideration is whether in a petition filed by a claimant in an Arbitration proceedings, for making a decree in terms of the Arbitration award under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Act,  a  person  who  was  not  a  party  in  the  arbitration proceedings could be impleaded the ground that he claimed to be a partner of the claimant.

6. The only issue in a proceeding under section 14(2) and 17 of the Act is whether the award should be made a rule of the court or not. The question whether the award should be set aside or not, would arise in a petition under sections 30, 33 and 16 of the Act and not in the petition under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Act. In fact the appellant has claimed  that  he  has  filed  a  separate  petition  for  that relief.  Having  regard  to  the  limited  scope  of  the proceedings,  the  Court  which  is  considering  a  petition under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Act can not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the petitioner before it was a partnership firm or a proprietary concern and whether an applicant for impleading was a partner thereof. Be that as

4

it may. The question as to whether the appellant should be impleaded  as  a  party,  has  become  academic  in  view  of subsequent events.  

7. During  the  pendency  of  this  appeal,  the  first respondent  (the  petitioner  in  the  Arbitration  Case No.96/25.1.1994  under  Sections  14(2)  and  17  of  the  Act) died. By order dated 15.7.2008, this Court has permitted his widow, two sons (including the appellant herein) and two daughters to be brought on record as the LRs. of the deceased.

8. In view of the fact that the first respondent who was the petitioner in the Arbitration Case No.96/25.1.1994 has died,  the  aforesaid  five  persons  will  also  have  to  be brought on record as his LRs. in the said case, if they are not already brought on record. If and when they are brought on record, the appellant in his capacity as one of the LRs of  the  deceased  petitioner  in  the  said  proceedings,  can certainly  urge  all  his  contentions  in  support  of  the petition  praying  that a decree  be made in  terms of the award.  No  other  question  would  arise  in  the  said proceedings. If the appellant wants to challenge the award, then he has to pursue the petition said to have been filed

5

by him for that purpose. As the grievance of the appellant that he should be heard in Arbitration Case No.96/25.1.1994 does no longer subsist as he, in his capacity as one of the LRs of the deceased, will be a party and will be heard. In fact  learned  counsel  for  the  other  LRs  of  the  deceased first respondent submitted that they have no objection for the  appellant  herein  coming  on  reord  as  an  LR  of  the deceased petitioner in Arbitration Case No.96/25.1.1994 and making his submissions in support of the petition. In so far his other grievances are concerned they cannot be gone into in the proceedings with a limited scope under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Act, and it is open to the appellant to pursue his remedies in accordance with law, in his suit for dissolution or his petition for setting aside the award.

9. The  appellant  submitted  that  there  was  some interference  by  his  brother-in-law,  who  had  occupied  a position of importance in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. If he has any such pending grievance he is at liberty to give a representation to the High Court so that it can be looked into. That is not the subject matter of this appeal.

10. As the dispute relating to dissolution of partnership and various other issues are pending for long, the parties,

6

if are so advised can get it settled by getting it referred to  Mediation.  The  appellant  and  the  other  LRs.  of  the deceased first respondent agreed to explore the possibility of negotiated settlement by mediation without prejudice to their rights/contentions. They agreed that they will appear without further notice before Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari  Courts,  Delhi  on  5.11.2008  at  4  p.m.  for  this purpose.

In view of the foregoing, the appeal is disposed of as no longer surviving for consideration.              

………………………….………………………J [R. V. Raveendran]

…………………………………………………….J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

New Delhi; October 14, 2008.

7