R.G. Ketkar, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Natu, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 at length. Mr. Tulzapurkar orally applies for deleting the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as no relief is claimed against them. On the Motion made by Mr. Tulzapurkar, leave to delete respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Mr. Natu raised preliminary objection that having regard to the prayers made in Application at Exhibit-19, the Petition instituted under Article 227 is not maintainable and the petitioner has to invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. In view thereof, leave to convert this Petition into Civil Revision Application is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

2. Rule. Mr. Natu waives service on behalf of the respondents. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up finally.

3. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, original defendant No. 1 has challenged the Judgment and order dated 20.8.2014 passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan below Exhibit 19 in special Civil Suit No. 73 of 2014. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "Act") for referring dispute to arbitration. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the trial Court. The relevant and material facts, giving rise to filing of the present Petition, briefly stated, are as under.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs', instituted suit for declaration that the registered Agreements of Sale dated 12.11.2010 and 17.2.2011 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the petitioner-defendant No. 1 in respect of Survey No. 29, Hissa No. 4, admeasuring H-0-R-27-00, Survey No. 29, Hissa No. 8 (out of), H-0-R-08-00 and Survey No. 29, Hissa No. 9B, H-0-R-06-05, situate at village Vadavali, Taluka Kalyan, Dist. Thane admeasuring 4146.05 sq. meters (for short, 'suit property') are sham, bogus, illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs and may be cancelled with further declaration that the same may be quashed and set aside under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiffs also sought perpetual injunction against the defendant not to invade in the peaceful possession in respect of the suit property. In the agreement of sale dated 12.11.2010, there is a specific clause, namely, clause No. 29. Clause 29 lays down that in case there being any dispute with respect to the suit property by and between the parties, then for resolving the said dispute under the provisions of the Act, an Arbitrator shall be appointed by consent of both the parties and the said dispute shall be resolved through Arbitrator. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 filed application under Section 8 of the Act praying that the matter may be referred to arbitration and the suit may be disposed of.

5. The plaintiffs resisted the application by filing detailed reply dated 25.6.2015. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application. It is against this decision, defendant No. 1 has instituted the present Petition.

6. In support of this Petition, Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that in the agreement of sale dated 12.11.2010, there is an arbitration clause. Clause 29 reads as under:

"29. First Party and Second Party herein admits that in case of dispute between the parties, shall be settled by arbitrator with the consent of both parties under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is agreed by both parties."

He submitted that the learned trial Judge rejected the application only on the ground that the averments of the Plaint disclosed that the plaintiffs are alleging commission of fraud by defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs are quest