Though matter is listed today for admission by consent of learned Advocates the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. The defendants 1 and 2 are in revision questioning the correctness and legality for the order assed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.4463/2002 by the third Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 22.1.2010 requesting this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction and to set aside the said order whereunder the application filed by defendants 1 and 2 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter refer to as New Act) came to be dismissed. The parties in this petition are referred as per their ranks in the Court below.

3. The facts and dates which are not in dispute are as follows:

The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement on 27-12-1991 for manufacture of tin containers/cans and other allied products. Certain dispute is said to have cropped-up between the parties with regard to said agreement on account of which, the plaintiff instituted a suit on 27-6-1996. The plaint came to be presented along with an application under Order 33 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code to sue as indigent person which petition came to be numbered as P.Misc.No.400/1996. On 23-9-1996 defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance through learned advocate and on 19-7-1996 objections came to P.Misc.400/1996 along with a memo. On 28-6-1999 after contest the above said petition P.Misc.400/1996 came to be dismissed and a direction was given to plaintiff to remit the Court fee by 31-8-1999.

4. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order of rejection of P.Misc.400/1996 filed a Civil Revision Petition No.2673/1999 before this Court challenging the said order of dismissal/rejection. By order dated 19-11-2001, the Civil Revision Petition came to be allowed. Though defendants were served in the said revision petition, none appeared on their behalf. While allowing the revision petition this Hon’ble Court had directed that suit is to be registered and the petitioners therein (plaintiffs) were permitted to continue the suit in forma pauperis. Aggrieved by this order the defendants filed a review petition in R.P.No.722/2004 which came to be dismissed by this Court of 19-11-2004.

5. As per order dated 19-11-2001 passed in CRP No.2673/1999 suit came to be numbered as O.S.No.4463/2002. On 18-7-2002 summons came to be issued to the defendants. On 22-1-2003 an advocate by name Sri.V.G.B. undertook to file vakalath for defendants 1 and 2. However, no such vakalath was filed. Hence, the Court below placed the defendants 1 and 2 ex parte on 18-9-2003. It is seen from the order sheet of O.S.No.4463/2002 dated 18-9-2003 on that date defendant No.3 was present and did not choose to cross-examine P.W.1 who had already been examined and hence the Court below posted the case for delivering the judgment.

6. The matter came to be subsequently adjourned to 18-3-2004. There afterwards the suit in O.S.No.4463/2002 referred to supra came to be adjourned to hear further arguments on 5-4-2004, 28-5-2004, 8-6-2004 and 28-6-2004. Thereafterwards the suit came to be adjourned to 8-7-2004. On the said date when the matter was set down for further arguments, the defendants engaged another counsel and vakalathnama was filed along with an application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte order dated 22-1-2003 placing the defendants exparte. Thereafterwards on 6-9-2004 defendants filed two interlocutory applications under Section 151 CPC for stay of suit and under order 7 Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint as being barred by Limitation respectively which came to be numbered as I.A.Nos.6 and 7. The application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code came to be allowed on 1-12-2004 and the matter was posted for hearing on I.A.No.7 and it was adjourned to 18-1-2005. Threafterwards from time to time the matter came to be adjourned to 4-2-2005, 26-3-2005 and 27-5-2005. On 27-5-2005 it w