P MADHUSUDHAN RAO Vs. LT COL RAVI MANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in I.A.(S.R.) No.6025 of 2011 in O.S.No.162 of 2011, who is defendant in the said suit on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, preferred this revision against the impugned decree and order dated 21.09.2012, whereby the petition filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed/rejected.

(2.) FOR convenience sake, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in I.A.(S.R.) No.6025 of 2011 in O.S.No.162 of 2011.

(3.) THE petitioner/defendant filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (in brief 'the Act'), alleging that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the petitioner though there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is specifically contended that the respondents pleaded in para -3 of the plaint that there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondents for appointment of one P.V.Subba Rao as arbitrator for interpretation of the agreement. In view of the arbitration clause, the dispute before the civil Court has to be referred to the arbitrator to settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondents, as the respondents themselves admitted about arbitration clause for referring the dispute to P.Subba Rao and the suit is not maintainable before a civil Court. Hence, the petitioner sought to refer the matter to arbitrator, invoking arbitration clause contained in the agreement as pleaded by the respondents and prayed to refer the dispute between the petitioner and respondents to the arbitrator, P.Subba Rao for settlement and to grant of stay of all further proceedings.