JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2021 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri in Civil Revision No. 01(1) 0f 2014 by setting aside the order No. 14, dated 26th November, 2013 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri in Title Suit No. 26 of 2012.

2. The opposite party No. 1 being the tenant of the premises filed a suit against the petitioners herein being Title Suit No. 26 of 2012 before the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Siliguri, inter-alia, praying for a decree declaring that the opposite party no. 1 is a lawful tenant with regard to the suit property and other reliefs.

3. The petitioners filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) praying for referring the parties to arbitration in terms of Clause 19 of the partnership deed entered between the parties. The opposite party has filed written objection to the said application.

4. The learned Trial Court by an order dated 26th November, 2013 had allowed the application by referring the parties to the arbitration.

5. The order dated 26th November, 2013 was challenged by the opposite parties by filing a revisional application under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the learned Court of Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri.

6. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri, by impugned order No. 40 dated 4th August, 2021 had set aside the order No. 14, dated 26th November 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Siliguri.

7. Mr. Sudipto Kr. Mazumdar, learned Advocate representing the petitioners submitted that the revisional application was filed under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the power of revision of the Court under Section 115A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was restricted by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Amended Act). In view of such amendment, the Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with an order unless such order, if passed in favour of revisionist, would have finally disposed of a suit or other proceeding.

8. In support of his contention, Mr. Mazumdar has relied upon the judgment reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, (2003) 6 SCC 503 and Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur vs. M/s. Swaraj Developers and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 659.

9. He submits that an order by allowing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not finally dispose of any suit or other proceeding and, therefore, was not amenable to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the amended Act.

10. Mr. Subham Ghosh, learned Advocate representing the opposite party submitted that this issue had not been canvassed before the learned Court below at the time of disposal of the revisional application and hence the petitioners were precluded from raising the same for the first time before this Court.

11. Mr. Ghosh further submits that the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division by an order dated 26th November, 2013 had allowed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by referring the parties to the arbitration which amounts to disposal of the suit itself as nothing remains in the suit and thus the revisional application was maintainable before the learned Court of Additional District Judge and accordingly the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the same.

12. Mr. Ghosh further submits that the partnership deed on the basis of which the petitioner intents to refer the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause 19, the said partnership deed has no existence as on the date of filing of the suit before the learned Trial Court.

13. Mr. Ghosh