NAVANEESH PRASAD Vs. J. MANJUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit for a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the schedule property, the application filed by the respondent-defendants under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'Act') has been allowed and the dispute in the suit is referred for arbitration. The petitioner-plaintiff has put the same in challenge by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance and opposed the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff vehemently contends that although in the registered "DEED OF LEASE" there is an arbitration clause, still the subject matter of ejectment suit is not legally arbitrable in view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, AIR 2017 SC 5137. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-defendants submits that the argument of the petitioner's side cannot be countenanced since the scope of arbitration clause is very wide and that there is no legal impediment for the arbitration of the lis in question.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the petition papers and adverted to the decision cited at the Bar.