1. In a Special Civil Suit No.252 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner-Orig. Plaintiff, the Trial court has allowed the Application Exhibit 14 for referring the parties to the Arbitrator, in terms of Clause-9 of the Development Agreement dated 14.2.2005. Hence, the original Plaintiff is before this Court in this Writ Petition.

2. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that under the Agreement dated 14.2.2005 entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 there subsists Clause-9 for referring the dispute arising out of payment of consideration to the Arbitrator. It has also been held that there is no dispute amongst the parties with respect to the interpretation of the Agreement or concerning any part of the said Agreement.

3. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken me through the copy of the plaint, the Clause-9 of the Arbitration and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. He has referred to the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 read with Section 2(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and relied upon three decisions of the Apex Court in the cases viz.( 1) Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. Master Ritesh & Ors, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 567, (2) Sukanya Holdings (P)Ltd Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr., reported in (2003) 5 SCC 531 and (3) S.N. Prasad Hitk Industries (Bihar) Vs. Monnet Finance Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 320 and urged that the claim in the plaint is not only against the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 with whom the Agreement, in question, was entered into on 14.2.2005, but also against the Defendant No.-15-CIDCO which has agreed to let out the suit properties to the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 on lease. He therefore submits that there cannot be splitting of claims; one to be referred to the Arbitrator and the another to be dealt with by the Civil Court in between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.-15-CIDCO. He further submits that the Defendant No.-15-CIDCO is not a party to the Agreement dated 14.2.2005 and hence in view of the decisions cited, the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the matter is required to be referred to an Arbitrator.

4. Per contra, Mr. Sakhare, the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 has urged that in the plaint there is absolutely no claim made against the Defendant No.-15-CIDCO. The Agreement dated 14.2.2005, contains a Clause-9 regarding the reference of a dispute to an Arbitrator, which includes all sorts of disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 and therefore the Trial Court was right in referring the dispute for an arbitration. He relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of (1) Smt. Barkibai U. Gharat & Ors. Vs. M/s Madhuraj Engineers & Builders & Ors on 13.12.2007 in Civil Revision Application No.307 of 2007 and (2) M/s Fiza Construction Vs. Smt. Parvati K. Thakur & Ors on 10.2.2010 in Writ Petition No.943 of 2010. Both these decisions are delivered by the learned Single Judges of this court. He has urged that this Court has held that merely because the CIDCO is party to the suit and it is not party to the arbitration agreement that does not prevent the Court from referring the matter to arbitration, as per the provisions of Section 7 and 8 read with Section 2(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. At the outset, it has to be observed that none of the contentions which are raised by Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner were raised before the Trial Court. Hence, there is no reference to the said contention in the judgment of the Trial Court. He, however, submits that these are pure questions of law and interpretation of the Clause-9 of the Agreement dated 14.2.2005 and governed by the decision of the Apex Court. Hence, the same can be taken into consideration by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

6 It is not in dispute that the suit property is required to be allotted on lease by the Defendant No.15-CIDCO to Defendant Nos.1 to 14 and