M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

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.

4. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the arbitral dispute is only for interpretation of terms of agreement but not for resolving any other disputes. Therefore, the dispute for recovery of possession and mesne profits is beyond the scope of arbitration clause and dismissed the petition.

5. The petitioner, being unsuccessful before the trial Court, preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising several contentions, mainly contending that the trial Court did not interpret the arbitration clause in proper perspective and the Courts are supposed to interpret the terms of contract basing on the intention of the parties and inadvertent drafting of clause itself is not sufficient to decline the relief and prayed to allow the revision and refer the matter to arbitrator, P.Subba Rao for settlement of dispute in this suit.

6. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Prabhakar would contend that the Court has to interpret the clauses of the contract based on the intention of the parties incorporating such clause but failure to interpret the clause in the agreement or contract would cause prejudice to the petitioner, if the intention of the parties is taken into consideration, while incorporating clause No.8 in the agreement as pleaded in the plaint, it is clear that the intention of the petitioner and respondents is only to refer any dispute relating to the contract, to P.Subba Rao appointing him as an arbitrator. But the trial Court on an erroneous interpretation of the clause regarding arbitration, dismissed the petition erroneously and relied on Punjab State v. Dina Nath (2007) 5 SCC 28), S.N.Prasad Hitek Industries (Bihar) v. Monnet Finance Limited (2011) 1 SCC 320) and JagdishChander v. Ramesh Chander (2007) 5 SCC 719).

7. Whereas, Sri Narender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondents raised three contentions. The first contention is that the arbitration clause incorporated in the alleged contract is only to refer the document for interpretation of clauses of contract to P.Subba Rao but not for any other purpose whereas the dispute in this matter is with regard to recovery of possession and mesne profits. Therefore, the disp