Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.XXXVII, R. 3---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 34---Suit in summary jurisdiction---Stay of suit in terms of S.34, Arbitration Act 1940---Validity--­Court while deciding application under S.34, Arbitration Act 1940, would be bound to look into the pleadings in plaint and not statement in the application for determining whether S. 34, Arbitration Act, 1940, was applicable in the matter---Where suit in question, was based on promissory note for recovery of amount claimed against defendants in summary manner, no dispute between parties could be assumed which could be referred to Arbitrator in terms of agreement between parties---Application for stay of suit was thus, not maintainable and proceedings of suit in question could not have been stayed in terms of S. 34, Arbitration Act, 1940---Order of Trial Court staying suit in question, in terms of S. 34, Arbitration Act, 1940, was recalled in circumstances. AIR 1917 Sindh 12; AIR 1954 Bom. 174 and PLD 1968 Dacca 361 rel. JUDGMENT SYED KHURSHEED HAIDER RIZVI, J.---This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-3-1990 passed by the learned Single .Judge in Suit No. 156 of 1988 between the parties whereby he allowed C.MA. No. 3280 of 1988 filed by the respondents-under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and held that the respondent's application C.MA.No. 3281 of 1988 under Order 37, Rule 3, C.P.C. for leave to pear and defend the suit has become infructious. Briefly stated the facts of this case as disclosed in the plaint are as under: The suit bearing No. 156 of 1988 is for recovery of Rs. 206,498 with mark up at Rs.43 per one thousand per day- from 1-1-1988 till payment. In September/October, 1985, the plaintiffs negotiated to purchase from defendant No. 1, the entire production of cotton ginned and fully pressed by them at their factory during the year 1985-86 Cotton Crop Season and on 12-10-1985 an agreement was executed between the parties: On 24-10-1985, the plaintiffs granted an advance of Rs. one Million to defendant No. 1, who, as a security for repayment thereof executed a Demand Promissory Note of the said amount. Earlier, vide letter of guarantee dated…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492