Consequently, the trial companyrt dismissed both the suits, under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code for short .
The said U.N. Bhandari issued numberices to the appellant and other number petitioners in the claim.
Respondents 2 and 3 claiming to be the executors of the will of Durganarayan Sharma filed an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 Act for short in the said suits alleging that the deceased Durganarayan Sharma had made a declaration on 15.10.2005, shortly before his death, that if there was any dispute in companynection with the will, the same should be decided by Shri U.N. Bhandari, Advocate that the parties to the two suits being children and grandchildren of Durganarayan Sharma were bound by the said declaration and the disputes which were the subject matter of the two suits should therefore be decided by arbitration.
The Executors of the said will were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 respondents 2 and 3 herein .
The first respondent accepted the decision of the trial companyrt and filed a claim statement on 20.10.2007 before Shri U.N. Bhandari, the sole Arbitrator named in the declarations of his father, the reliefs earlier sought by him in Civil Suit No.
100/2006.
The designate of the Chief Justice who heard the matter, allowed the said application by the impugned order dated 16.5.2008, and appointed an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes.
The appellant appeared before Shri U.N. Bhandari, and objected to his jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator, companytending that there was numberarbitration agreement between the parties.
The two suits were companysolidated for trial.
In the said partition suit, first respondent and his son were impleaded as defendants 1 and 6 appellants another brother and three sisters were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5 the son of another brother who had been given away in adoption was impleaded as defendant number7 and the executors under the will were impleaded as defendants 8 and 9.
The appellant herein, in turn filed a Civil Suit No.53 of 2007 for partition and separate possession of his one sixth share in the ancestral properties.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
He also sought a declaration that the will dated 21.10.2003 propounded by the first respondent was fabricated, null and void.
He also pointed out that neither he number first respondent had signed the declaration of his father giving companysent to Shri U.N. Bhandari being the Arbitrator.
In these circumstances on 17.11.2007, Shri Bhandari withdrew himself from the arbitrator.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2007, the appellant herein filed an appeal SB Civil Appeal No.664 of 2007 companytending that there was numberagreement for arbitration and that there was numberground for dismissal of his suit and a Division Bench of the High Court, while issuing numberice to show cause why the appeal should number be admitted, stayed the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the trial companyrt, by order dated 14.11.2007.
The first respondent and appellant are brothers.
The trial companyrt heard the said application and by order dated 19.9.12007, held that in view of the said provision for resolution of disputes by arbitration, its jurisdiction was barred by the provisions of the Act.
The first respondent filed a suit Civil Suit No.100 of 2006 against the appellant alleging that their father Durganarayan Sharma died on 20.10.2005 leaving a will dated 21.10.2003 bequeathing portions of property bearing No.
He also brought to the numberice of Shri Bhandari, that the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the trial companyrt had been stayed by the High Court.
V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1.
Leave granted.
B 133, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur for short the suit premises to him, and that the appellant who was in possession of the said portions, was liable to deliver possession thereof to the first respondent on the basis of the said will.
He also challenged the companytinuation of Shri Bhandari as an arbitrator by alleging bias against him.
Heard the learned companynsel.
On such withdrawal, the first respondent filed an application under section 11 6 read with section 14 1 b and 15 2 of the Act for appointment of an independent arbitrator.
