ORDER :

1. As both the revision petitions arise out of two applications arising out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The 1st respondent had filed O.S. No. 74 of 2014 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,10,61,125/- with costs and interest at 24% per annum on Rs. 1,46,39,339/- before the VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, against the petitioner herein and four other defendants. The case of the 1st respondent was that the petitioner herein had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 1st respondent on 06.02.2012 under which the 1st respondent has to complete certain works entrusted to the 1st respondent and submit bills in due course. As the petitioner did not clear the bills submitted by the 1st respondent after completion of the works entrusted to it, a registered notice was initially issued demanding payment of the amount due, with interest. Upon failure to pay such amount, the present suit was filed for recovery.

3. After receipt of notice of the suit, the petitioner herein filed a written statement on 29.10.2014. In this written statement, the petitioner took the defence that the suit was not maintainable before the civil Court as per Clause-J of the terms of MOU dated 06.02.2012 which reads as follows:

“J. Arbitration: AEA and PP will undertake to resolve any unforeseen events, disputes of misunderstandings in a consensual and amiable manner. Any misunderstanding arising from differing interpretations of the clauses of this MOU or emerging from the field activities, will in the first instance be the subject of negotiations on the part of AEA and PP conducted by representatives designated by each Organisation. In the event that no solution is found, AEA and PP will seek the arbitration of a mutually agreed third party such as professional arbitrators, or recognized audit and management.”

4. The petitioner took the plea that in view of the above clause, the 1st respondent should have invoked the arbitration clause and a civil suit was not maintainable and the plaint requires to be rejected. The petitioner also stated, in his written statement, that the petitioner reserves the right to file a detailed additional written statement after the preliminary issue raised in the written statement regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the existence of a specific arbitration clause is decided.

5. Thereafter, the trial Court framed issues on 21.04.2015 and subsequently, additional issues were also framed on 25.04.2019. One of the issues framed on 21.04.2015 reads as follows:

“Whether the plaintiff is need to invoke Arbitration or not?”

6. Thereafter, the trial of the suit was taken up on 15.06.2015. The trial Court in paragraphs 10 to 14, of the order under revision, recorded various developments which took place in the course of the trial. The record of these developments shows that the petitioner herein had been dragging the trial on various grounds. It is recorded that on account of non-cooperation of the petitioner, the trial Court had set the petitioner ex-parte and had reopened the evidence of the petitioner on an application being filed. In any event, the petitioner, though being granted adjournments on various grounds, had not raised the issue of arbitration until 04.11.2019 when two I.A. were filed by the petitioner. It appears that these two applications were returned with some objections and were represented on 13.11.2020 with applications for condonation of delay in re-presentation. The applications for condonation of delay were allowed and the applications were numbered on 16.12.2020 as I.A. No. 399 of 2020 and I.A. No. 400 of 2020.

7. The prayer in I.A. No. 399 of 2020 is as follows:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to refer the matter to the Arbitrator in view of arbitration clause between the parties in the MOU dated 06.02.2012 and pass order or orders as