REBELLO F.I., J.:---By consent heard forthwith.

The questions for determination in this appeal from order arise from two agreements. The first agreement was between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 dated 9-11-2000 and the arbitral agreement dated 9th December, 2000. The second agreement is dated 18-1-2001 between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Both the agreements contain arbitral clauses. In the agreement between appellant and respondent No. 1 the arbitral clauses reads as under:

"All disputes arisen in connection with this agreement shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator shall be appointed by the courts of U.K. Hearing shall take place in London. This agreement shall be governed by U.K. Law."

In so far as agreement dated 18-1-2001 between appellant and respondent No. 2 is concerned, the arbitral clause is contained in Clauses 13 and 15 and they read as under:

"13. If at any time any dispute or question shall arise between the parties to this agreement in connection with this agreement or its validity construction or performance then the same shall be referred to an arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties and failing such agreement within (15) days of either party requesting the appointment of an arbitrator and suggesting a name, the arbitrator shall be appointed by the President for the time being of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and according to the provisions of the Arbitration Acts 1950 and 1979 and the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties and unless otherwise agreed the cost of arbitration shall be borne by the parties equally."

"15. The construction, validity and performance of this agreement shall be governed in all respects by English Law."

2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane being Special Civil Suit No. 50 of 2002 against the respondents. The main reliefs sought in the suit read as under:

(a) that this Hon'ble Court declare that the said agreements dated 9th November, 2000 and 18th January, 2001 and the arbitration agreements contained in them are all illegal, null and void ab initio, or in-operative and/or incapable of being performed.

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner implementing and/or acting upon and/or in furtherance of the agreements dated 9th November, 2000 (as amended by the agreement dated 9th December, 2000) and 18th January, 2001 and the arbitration clauses contained in them and from initiating any proceedings arising out of the agreement.

(d) Without prejudice to prayers (a) to (c) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the 2nd defendant is not entitled to proceed with the arbitration under the agreement dated 18th January, 2001 unless and until the arbitration between the plaintiff and the 1st defendants is finally concluded and the Award therein finally executed and enforced in accordance with law."

Plaintiffs had taken out a Notice of Motion, and sought reliefs which substantially are to restrain defendants from in any manner commencing and or proceeding with and or participating in any manner in any proceedings in a Court for law and or arbitration against the plaintiffs under the agreements dated 9-11-2000 as amended by agreement dated 9-12-2000 and 18-1-2001. The application came to be dismissed by order dated 13-8-2001. The cause of action as pleaded in the suit by the plaintiffs is that the agreements were entered into by misrepresentation to the appellant/plaintiffs by the defendant/respondent, by suppressing material facts which were to the knowledge of the defendants and thus defendants played fraud on the plaintiffs. The agreements with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were executed by the appellants under the mistaken belief induced by the respondents, that the same were forming part of one agreement and as such there was no consensus ad idem. In the circumstances, it is contended tha