HARISH TANDON, J:

This revisional application is directed against an order no. 32 dated June 25, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit no. 1191 of 2005 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under section 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

The opposite party instituted Title Suit no. 1191 of 2005 against the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 herein, seeking a declaration that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, being the defendants therein, have no right to illegally seize the vehicle in question upon utilizing the blank and printed papers signed by the opposite party at the time of taking loan and to convert the same into colourable document and permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein to seize the vehicle in question except due process of law.

The opposite party no. 1 also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an order dated August 12, 2005 the trial court passed an ad interim order restraining the defendants therein from seizing the motor vehicle in question except due process of law till 9th September 2005. The trial court further directed the opposite party no. 1 to comply the provisions contained in Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The opposite party no. 1, as it appears sent the requisites by registered post on the same day.

Subsequently the opposite party no. 1 also filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that in spite of an order of injunction dated August 12, 2005 the petitioner forcibly took possession of the vehicle in question and prayed for a direction upon the Officer in-charge, Motor Theft Section, Detective Department, Lalbazar to forthwith reseize the vehicle in question and to hand over the same to the opposite party no. 1, Alternatively, an Advocate-Receiver be appointed for such purpose. The petitioner entered appearance and filed an application under section 5 and 8 of the said Act. It is contended that by an agreement dated October 5, 2004 the opposite party no. 1 took loan for purchase of the vehicle in question and agreed to repay the same with accrued interest by 47 equated monthly installments. It is further contended that the said agreement contains an arbitration clause and as such the court should refer the parties to arbitration. The petitioner also contested the said application under section 151 of the Code filed by the opposite party no. 1 contending that the agreement dated 5th October 2004 not only contains an arbitration clause but also confers right upon the petitioner to take possession of the said vehicle without resorting to any legal proceeding. The petitioner further stated that the opposite party no. 1 defaulted in payment of the agreed monthly installments, the possession of the vehicle in question was taken by the petitioner on 8th August 2005 through the opposite party no. 2 being the Commissural Associates who is also the recovery agent of the petitioner.

By consecutive order passed on the same day the aforesaid two applications were disposed of by the trial court thereby dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under section 5 and 8 of the said Act and allowing the said application filed by the opposite party no. 1 under section 151 of the Code directing the Officer in-charge Motor Theft Section, Detective Department, Lalbazar to forthwith reseize the vehicle in question and to hand over the same to the opposite party no. 1.

Mr. Mainak Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that once the court finds that there is an existence of a valid arbitration agreement the court is left with no option but to refer the parties to an arbitration as the provisions contained under section 8 of the said Act are mandatory. He further argue