K.C. Bhanu, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.06.2014 in I.A. No. 178 of 2014 in O.S. No. 53 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act, 1996’) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to refer the matter to Arbitrator for adjudication of dispute in view of clause 39 of the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 22.01.2007. That petition was dismissed by the trial court, vide the impugned order.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant, and the respondents herein are plaintiffs, in the suit. For better appreciation, the parties are hereinafter arrayed as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The averments of plaint, in brief, may be stated as follows;

Plaintiffs are owners of an extent of 640 square yards of land in plot Nos. 35, 35 (part) and 36 in survey no.38 of Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They came to know that the defendant and its group companies were developing entire area and approached the defendant along with their father, and offered for its development along with other abutting land. After negotiations, they entered into a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.1380/2007, dated 22.01.2007, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein whereunder the defendant agreed to develop the schedule property within 36 months from the date of according permissions. Thereafter, at the request of the defendant, plaintiffs entered into a supplementary agreement on 24.01.2007. Though the plaintiffs are requesting the defendant to obtain necessary permissions from the authorities concerned from the date of execution of the agreement, the defendant has not taken any effective steps in that direction. As per the terms and conditions of the development agreement, the plaintiffs are entitled to 22 square feet of built up per square yard for the land entrusted for development to the defendant. As the defendant has not taken any effective steps to develop the project, they got issued a notice dated 18.11.2013 cancelling the development agreement. The defendant did not give any reply to the said notice. As per the clauses of the development agreement, permissive possession was granted to the defendant permitting it to enter upon the suit schedule property for development activity. Hence, the suit is filed for cancellation of the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 22.01.2007 and the supplementary agreement dated 24.01.2007 and for redelivery of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.

5. After filing of the suit, defendant filed I.A. No.178 of 2014 under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 to refer the matter to the Arbitrator for adjudication in view of clause 39 of the Development Agreement dated 22.01.2007 as the dispute arose out of the said Development Agreement. The plaintiffs filed counter in the said interlocutory application admitting that they entered into the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.1380/2007, dated 22.01.2007 and also admitting that there is arbitration clause in the said agreement, but contending that as plaintiffs had already issued notice for cancellation of the agreement and filed a suit, the question of arbitration does not arise; that when the notice was got issued for cancellation of the agreement, the defendant gave a reply to the said notice but it had not invoked the arbitration clause in the said reply notice; that all the clauses in the agreement would go to show that it can be invoked only if there is a dispute pertaining to the agreement, but the plaintiffs have not sought adjudication of any dispute arising out of the agreement, but cancelled the agreement b