Law:

Section:

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)----S.34---Stay of suit on application of a party who though arrayed as defendant in suit, but was not party to partnership agreement containing arbitration clause---Validity---Suit had rightly beers stayed and no exception could be taken to such order. Amanullah Piracha and another v. Mrs. Tasneem Baig and another 1988 M L D 1552 ref. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 11-5-1999 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No. 649 of 1999 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 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. 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. We are afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel is not acceptable 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 is 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…

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