various issues were framed by the trial companyrt.
from the judgment and order dated 17.12.1986 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in s.a.
therefore the main ques tion was whether the existence of the agreement as hire purchase agreement was denied by the appellant and put in issue before the companyrt.
this is an appeal from the judgment and order of the high companyrt of madhya pradesh dated 17th of december 1986.
this fact was raised in the plaint and issue to that effect was raised in other words that the appellant plaintiff in this case was contended that the agreement described as hire purchase agreements were untrue and void procured fraudulently.
the execution of the documents was number denied but it was alleged that these were manipulated documents in other words fraudulent documents and it was further the case of the appellant that there were in fact numberagreements which contained the arbitration agreement.
the issues framed by the learned trial judge also included this specific point.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2286 of 1987.
it was the case of the appellant that the alleged arbitration agreement was number entered into as such in the sense though certain documents were executed these were number properly understood as hire purchase agreements.
number 536 of 1985.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. special leave granted.
it appears from the perusal of the plaint as well as the issues framed that the very existence of the agreement described as hire purchase agreements was put in issue.
nair for the appellants.
the appeal was filed by the plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that the eight agreements companytracts executed between it and the defendant number 1 m s. jayabharat credit and investment company limited were number hire purchase agreements but were agreements relating to transaction of loan and for injunction restraining the defendant number 1.
mukul mudgal for the respondents.
m. tarkunde k.m.k.
