Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The distinguished issue that emanates for consideration in this first appeal is whether jurisdiction of the civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") in case of availability of arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Association read with Section 201 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956?

2. The essential facts requisite in order to decide the plea raised at the bar is as under: (The parties herein above shall be referred in this order as per their status shown in the plaint.)

2.1. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted a civil suit before the jurisdictional civil Court against the respondent/defendant for cancellation of agreement dated 5.5.2015 and recovery of Rs. 5 lacs. The suit was filed stating inter alia that the plaintiffs and the defendants were directors in one company named as "Om Bhoo Vikas and Insurance Pvt. Ltd." and the defendant was president who resigned from the company on 13.12.2014. Thereafter, on 5.5.2015 the defendant executed an agreement with the plaintiffs for sale of his share certificate and obtained Rs. 5 lacs in advance. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant also obtained three cheques each of Rs. 33 lacs, in total Rs. 99 lacs, on account of security for sale amount of his shares. Thereafter, the defendant refused to comply with the agreement and also refused to take notice on different dates and failed to submit sale certificate which led to filing of suit seeking for relief of cancellation of the agreement dated 5.5.2015 and in consequence thereof the plaintiffs also sought refund of three cheques and recovery of Rs. 5 lacs with 18% interest.

2.2. On being summoned, the defendant did not file his written statement and only filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the suit is not properly valued and according to the Memorandum of Association read with Section 201 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short "the Act of 1956"), there being provision to resolve the dispute between the parties by way of arbitration, jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

2.3. The present plaintiffs filed their reply opposing the said application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC stating, inter alia, that the dispute is not between the directors of the said company inter se but the suit has been filed for cancellation of agreement and for recovery of amount illegally obtained by the defendant and therefore, the suit is cognisable by the civil Court and as such, application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC deserves to be rejected.

3. The Trial Court by its impugned order allowed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint finding, inter alia, that the suit has been filed by the directors of the company against the former director of the company, subject matter of the suit is related to the company and that the subject matter to which the dispute pertains can be resolved by way of arbitration as provided in the Memorandum of Association read with Section 201 of the Act of 1956 and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Trial Court, this appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed by the plaintiffs stating, inter alia, that the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint invoking Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC is contrary to law and therefore, liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Trial Court to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Shrawal Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants would submit that jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 9 of CPC has to be construed strictly and unless the jurisdiction is expressly barred or clearly implied by the statute, it cannot be held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred