MURATAB ALI and another vs LIAQUAT ALI and another

ORDER

1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 11-5- 1999 passed by the learned Lahore High Cold, Lahore, Whereby Civil Revision No, 649 of 1999 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment did not take into consideration the provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

3. According to him, respondent No,2 Messrs Rathore & Company was not a party to the partnership agreement, dated 31-10-1982 containing clause for making reference to the arbitration in respect of the dispute relating to the business etc. Between them, therefore, the suit could not have been stayed.

4. ' We are afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel is notacceptable because respondent No,1 Liaquat Ali, being a party to the partnership agreement, before submitting to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court had filed an application with the request to stay the proceedings in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement. The learned High Court after having taken into consideration the implication of section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the object for which respondent No,2 was impleaded as party observed as under:--- "6. Respondent No,2 has been impleaded as a defendant to the suit merely on the allegation that respondent No,1 used to file false, forged and fictitious tax returns through the active connivance and collusion of respondent No,2 but otherwise no decree has been sought, in the prayer of the plaint, against respondent No,2 and, therefore, I am of the view that the Appellate Court has correctly held that respondent No,2 is not a necessary party to the suit and has correctly followed the rule of law laid down in Amanullah Piracha and another v. Mrs. Tasneem Baig and another 1988 M LD 1552 (DB) (wherein it has been held that where a party who has been arrayed as a defendant in the suit and is not a necessary party and is also not privy to arbitration agreement, then the provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration Act can be pressed upon."

5. Because the application has been moved for staying the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, therefore, notwithstanding the fact whether respondent No,2 was a party or not in terms of arbitration clause in the partnership agreement read with section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the suit has been rightly, stayed and no exception can be taken against such order, therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no substance. As such for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition, therefore, the same is dismissed and leave is refused.