1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 308 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chitradurga is the petitioner.

2. Parties will be referred according to their ranking found in the Court below for convenience.

3. It is contended in the plaint that plaintiff is illiterate not worldly wise, do no know writing and reading of English. To lead his livelihood, he used to give lorry on hire. Plaintiff is registered owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA16/A 8702, it is a 2008 model. Plaintiff was in need of funds i.e., for the maintenance of the vehicle. So, he approached defendants for financials assistance. Defendants agreed to render financial assistance. 2nd defendant advanced Rs.10,20,000/- to the plaintiff. It carried a interest at 16%. Defendants did not give proper accounts. On verification he learnt that the defendant has taken a hypothecation agreement dated 21-2-2008. Plaintiff apprehends that vehicle may be seized by the defendants or its agents. So, files a suit for permanent injunction seeks an order that acts of the defendants to seize the vehicle without having recourse to law, is bad in law. Defendants after apprehension have filed I.A.3. In the application, defendants have contended that there is an arbitration agreement in regard to the loan transaction, sought for order under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. To the said application plaintiff has filed objection. In the objection, it is contended that the signatures are taken by the defendants to the documents in question he signed without proper understanding the terms of the agreement. Even otherwise provisions of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are in force. So, it can be referred to mediation or arbitration or conciliation or Lokadalath. So pray for rejecting the said application.

4. Learned Trial Judge hasheard both sides. By the impugned order allowed the application of defendants. Vacated injunction while referring the case to sole arbitration Sri Balasubramanyam, Retired Registrar General, High Court of Chennai or in the alternative to Sri Devaraj.

5. This finding of the learned Trial Judge is challenged in this revision. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that when there is a specific sand taken by the plaintiff i.e., illiterate, he did not understand the contents of the documents, Court ought not to have read the terms of the agreement and passed the impugned order.

6. Secondly, contend that to refer a case for arbitration under Section 8, original agreement has to be produced by the defendants it is not produced. Action of the defendants are not in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in N. Radhakrishnan v M/s. Maestro Engineers and Others (2010 AIR SCW 331:(2010)1 SCC 72) , so prayed for stay of the order passed by the Court below.

7. Point that arise for consideration is:

“Whether the case requires interference at the hands of this Court?”

8. First contention of the Advocate for the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is illiterate. Plaintiff is not aware of the contents of the agreement. If that is so, plaintiff ought to have prayed for declaration in accordance with law. Having not sought for declaration, challenged the terms of the agreement, the material represented before the Court would lead to interference of agreement being in existence between plaintiff and defendant. So, the contentions that plaintiff is illiterate. So, is not aware of the agreement urged need not be gone into as the suit is not framed to answer this subject.

9. Second contentions is that the defendant ought to have filed the original agreement, having not filed they violated the mandate under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Place reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in N. Radhakrishnan’s case. In the facts of the case before the Apex Court there is an admission of the agreement. But in the facts of the case even the agreement is disputed by the plaintif