TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to as the Act ) for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties so as to convert the same as a suit for recovery of amount claimed therein. On 30.3.1986, the respondent-Corporation filed an interim application being I.A. No. 885 of 1986 for amending the pending application under Section 20 of the Act so as to convert the same as a plaint under Order VII Rule 1 of the C.P.C for recovery of money. The application was rejected by the trial court. The High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court and allowed the same by exercising powers under Section 151 and Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. That order is challenged by filing this appeal. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant entered into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to proceed to adjudge the dispute in accordance with law and (iii) for a direction for costs and such further relief. The respondent-Corporation also filed an application being Interlocutory Application No. 1406 of 1978 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Civil Suit No. 130 of 1978 for stay of further proceedings and for referring the dispute to the arbitrator. The trial court dismissed the said application as not maintainable inasmuch as the application failed to disclose any dispute or difference between the parties which would come within the arbitration agreement. Against that order, the respondent-Corporation preferred an appeal to the High Court of Kerala being M.F.A No. 661 of 1980. By order dated 1.8.1985 the Division Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istance of the parties by the removal of the impasse and the extrication of their rights . Learned Judge thereafter held that the suit No. O.S. 107 of 1978 instituted by respondent contains all particulars that should contain in a regular suit, whether the suit is one under Section 20 or regular suit, the cause of action will be same, the difference between the suit filed under Section 20 and regular suit is only in regard to the reliefs prayed for, the suit under Section 20 is in the nature of a regular suit; the amendment shall not cause prejudice to other side which cannot be compensated in terms of cost; it cannot also be said that by allowing the amendment, the plaintiff is allowed to agitate a cause barred by limitation. The learned J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant. Section 20 nowhere provides that application filed for referring the dispute to the arbitrator is to be treated as a plaint as contemplated under C.P.C. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a plaint. 8. Further, before applying provisions of Order VI Rule 17, there must be institution of the suit. Any application filed under provisions of different statutes cannot be treated as a suit or plaint unless otherwise provided in the said Act. In any case, the amendment would introduce totally new cause of action and change the nature of suit. It would also introduce a totally different case which is inconsistent with the prayer made in the application for referring the dispute to the arbitrator. Prima facie, such amendment woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
