Manmohan, J.

1. The Appellant has filed the present first appeal being FAO (OS) No. 71/2006 under Order XLIII read with Order XLIIA read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966, against the order dated 29th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By way of impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Respondent No. 1s application for referring the disputes raised in the suit by the Appellant/Plaintiff to arbitration. In fact, the learned Single Judge specifically directed, "that the parties should take recourse to arbitration and the Arbitrators be appointed in terms of the Arbitration Clause."

2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Plaintiff is dominus litus and has the right to choose the parties and the forum to enforce the rights legally available to him. He further contends that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Respondent/Defendant No. 2 is neither a signatory nor a party to the Master Lease Agreement or the supplementary agreement incorporating the Arbitration Clause. The Appellants counsel also relied on the judgment of the apex Court in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya reported