JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

1. The present challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against an order passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”), by the Appellate Court, affirming an order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application of the defendant no.1/petitioner under Section 8 of, read with Section 5, of the 1996 Act.

2. Both the courts below proceeded on the premise that a serious allegation of fraud was involved in the adjudication of the suit, which required detailed evidence and ought to be heard by the Civil Court itself, not by an arbitrator.

3. The Trial Court also held that it can be prima facie said that the impugned deed dated April 17, 2007 may not have been acted upon or have not come into existence at all. Since the existence of the deed was found to be questionable, the Trial Court held that further adjudication of the matter, taking into consideration cogent evidence, was required, which was to be done by the Civil Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that both the courts below acted without jurisdiction in refusing to