(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are defendants of Title Suit No. 208 of 2003, which was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for declarlion that the plaintiff was entitled to realise Rs. 50,000/- per month from the defendants-petitioners as compensation since 11-3-2003 according to the terms of agreement dated 10-3-2000 and 29-5-2001 executed by defendant No. 1 and for directing them to go on paying the compensation at the said rate each month to the plaintiff till handing over the possession of the plaintiffs portion of the apartment constructed by the defendants.
(2.) The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 17-12-2004 pass in the aforesaid suit, by which learned Sub-ordinate Judge-VIII, Patna rejected their petition filed under Section 5 read with Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1996' for the sake of brevity) for referring the suit to the Arbitrator for final adjudication.
(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants petitioners has submitted that the plaintiff- opposite party is the land owner, whereas the defendants-petitioners are the Developers and they entered into a Development Agreement on 10-3-2000 with respect to the land of the plaintiff. He has further stated that the said agreement was modified by another agreement dated 29-5-2001, which was to be part of the earlier agreement, for extension of the time of 2 and 1/2 years agreed in the previous agreement by further six months and if by that time the land owner's constructed portion is not handed over to him, then the Developer will have to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month to the land owner until such possession is given to him. The arbitration clause was included in paragraph 33 of the original agreement and it was stated that in ease of any doubt or dispute between the land owner and the Developer, they would solve the said problem by appointment of an Arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1940' for the sake of brevity). Hence he averred that if there was any dispute or dissatisfaction the land owner should have referred the matter to an Arbitrator and there was no occasion for him to file the instant suit.