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 companycern.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
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.
The trial companyrt also numbered 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 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 companyrt.
The trial companyrt 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 number been adjudicated or declared by any companyrt, he was neither a necessary party number a proper party to the proceedings.
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.
In the companyrse of its order, the trial companyrt 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 of.
The appellant is the son of the deceased first respondent.
In the said petition, the petitioner was described thus Birinder Singh Puri, 225/18 A, Chandigarh, Proprietor M s. B.S.Puri Co 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.
Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition No.243/2001 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The said application was resisted by the first respondent.
The question as to whether the appellant should be impleaded as a party, has become academic in view of subsequent events.
He companytended 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.
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 companycern.
