1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

2. By this revision application, the legality and correctness of the order dated 29th April 2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 310 of 2017, thereby rejecting application vide Exhibit 9, have been questioned.

3. The revision applicants are the original defendants against whom Special Civil Suit No. 310 of 2017 is preferred by the respondents/original plaintiffs. The suit was filed for seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs. It was contended that two Companies, M/s Shakambari Niketan Private Limited and TechInfra Developers and Engineers Private Limited (for short, “Shakambari Company” and “TechInfra Company” respectively), both registered under the provisions of the Companies Act having become the joint owners of Plot No. 625 situated at mouza Indora, Nagpur entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 15th May 2014 with the revision applicant no. 1, through its Proprietor, the revision applicant no. 2. In this MoU dated 15th May 2014 executed between the two Companies and revision applicant no. 1, it was shown that for Shakambari Company and TechInfra Company, respondent no. 1 being the Director of both these Companies, had the authority to execute the document. The MoU was for development of Plot No. 625 into a multistoried building having selfcontained units or apartments to be developed and constructed by respondent no. 1 within a timeframe stipulated in the moU. The total cost of the project was of Rs. 14.87 crores out of which certain amount was considered to be invested by the two Companies. The estimated profit to be earned from out of this project was of about Rs. 7.29 crores and it was agreed to be shared between Shakambari Company and TechInfra Company on the one hand and New Shelter Enterprises on the other hand in the ratio of 45% and 55%. It was also agreed that applicant no. 2 would not appropriate to himself any money or income from out of this project till it was first applied towards reimbursement of initial cost of investment paid by the two Companies. Applicant no. 2 was also obliged to put in his own money to certain extent and was required to complete the project in all respect by the date stipulated in the MoU. In this MoU, the two Companies Shakambari and TechInfra were described as “land owners” and revision applicants no. 1 and 2 were shown as “developer/builder”. However, as it turned out later on, many of the obligations imposed upon the revision applicants no. 1 and 2, the developer/builder, could not be performed by them and it was felt necessary to add to or modify some of the terms of the MoU and, therefore, two supplementary Memoranda of Understanding were executed between the land owners and developer/builder. Two more documents, one Development Agreement dated 22.9.2016 and another document dated 21.12.2016 were also registered between the Companies and the revision applicants. By the later documents, revision applicant no. 3 also entered the scene and was conferred with similar position as revision applicants no. 1 and 2. However, these later agreements between the parties also could not salvage the failing situation and ultimately, the respondents, owing to serious disputes between the parties, filed civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 310 of 2017.

4. The revision applicants raised objection to the maintainability of the suit on three counts :

(i) nondisclosure of the cause of action and

(ii) the plaint being barred by law as the suit was filed by the Directors of the two Companies without any authority to file the suit for and on behalf of the Companies and

(iii) arbitral clause contained in the MoU dated 15th May 2014 barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit.

Therefore, application (Exhibit 9) was moved by the revision applicant. This application was filed with alternate prayers, one prayer made under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code o