1. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chamaria, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of (i) the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in Misc.(J) Case No. 234/2016, in T.S. No.53/2016 as well as (ii) the consequential order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in T.S. No.53/2016. By the said orders, the plaint of the petitioners/ plaintiffs was rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. The case of the parties, relevant for the purpose of this revision is that the petitioners had purchased a residential flat together with a car parking space in an apartment building promoted/built by the respondents. An agreement for sale for the same was executed on 02.03.2010 and registered as Deed No. 1142 dated 04.03.2010. Thereafter, a sale deed for the said flat was executed and registered as Deed No. 6980 dated 05.08.2011. However, the petitioners took possession of the flat without the parking space. On verbal protest for not giving the parking space, the respondents by a letter dated 20.08.2011, allotted a temporary parking space to the petitioners from 20.08.2011 to 10.09.2011. Thereafter, vide letter dated 14.12.2012, the respondents officially handed over the possession of the said flat and parking space. Thereafter, the petitioners had instituted T.S. No. 53/2016, inter-alia, praying for a decree directing the respondents/ defendants to allot proper parking space as per GMDA (Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority) approved plan. The said suit was made over for trial to the Court of learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court” for short).

4. The respondents/ defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and they also filed a separate application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 234/2016. In the said application, it was inter-alia, projected that the sale deed contained a covenant that various terms narrated in the Deed of Agreement for Sale bearing Deed No. 1142 dated 04.03.2010 would squarely be followed up while executing the said Sale Deed No. 6890 dated 05.09.2011. On the said basis, it was further projected that the Agreement for Sale as well as Sale Deed are both interconnected to each other and are to be read as a whole. Thus, as the Agreement for Sale contained a clause for settling all disputes through arbitration process, the present suit filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs was liable to be rejected. The petitioners contested the said application by filing their written objection. The learned Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by an order dated 14.12.2016 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 234/16, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”, by relying on the clause 10.1 arrived at a finding that “Hence, in the presence of this clause 10.1 on which both the parties have admitted to refer the dispute to arbitration, the filing of the present suit become barred under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC since the matter deals with Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The matter in dispute of this suit would be decided through arbitration. Therefore, the plaint of this suit is liable to be cancelled/ rejected.” Consequently, on Misc. (J) Case No. 234/16, being allowed, the suit was also disposed-of.

5. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of the plaint, the petitioners have filed this application. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order was without jurisdiction because if at all the court w