Point of law: if application filed by the petitioner had been decided in the petitioner’s favour would not finally dispose of the suit since there are other defendants also against whom plaintiff has sought the protection from initiating arbitration and recovery proceedings

ORDER :

The instant revision petition under Section 151 CPC has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 passed by Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur (afterwards referred to as ‘Commercial Court’) in Suit No. 53/2020 (430/2019), whereby, the application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and Sections 8 & 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (afterwards referred to as the ‘A&C Act’) filed by defendant No.5 – petitioner herein has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein applied for loan to so many Banks including petitioner Bank; the consolidated amount taken on loan from different seven Banks is Rs. 98,34,413/-; plaintiff filed a suit against all the banks including the present petitioner – defendant No. 5 to the effect that a fraud has been committed by some doctors viz. Dr. Manohar Lal, Dr. Vikash Sharma and other persons; defendants managed to get sign of the plaintiff on blank papers and forms; a total sum of Rs. 98,32,101/-was credited by defendant Banks in the account of plaintiff; afterwards plaintiff came to know that the said credited money has been transferred in the account of Kishan Hospital and Research Centre; thereafter plaintiff lodged an FIR No.274/2019 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC on 02.07.2019 against all the defendants; thereafter plaintiff came to know from the newspaper that an FIR No. 17/2019 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC has been registered against Dr. Ram Lakhan Desaniya, Dr. Nand Lal Desaniya, Dr. Suresh Rolaniya, Dr. Manohar Kanwariya, Dr. Pavan Sharma, Dr. Ravi Prakash Khatri, Dr. Neha Jain, Vikas Sharma, Radha Mohan, Karan and Laxmi Narayan, in which, after filing charge-sheet cognizance has been taken by the Court; from the FIR No.17/2019 plaintiff came to know that fraud has been committed with her by the defendants then plaintiff intimated the Banks that no proceedings should be initiated against the plaintiff on the forged document; all the banks sent notices to the plaintiff and initiated arbitration proceedings; since all the loan accounts were opened in a fraudulent manner, hence the arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated; the plaintiff prayed that all the loan agreements may be declared void and defendants may be restrained from initiating any arbitration and recovery proceedings against the plaintiff on the basis of above forged loan agreements.

3. An application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Sections 8 and 5 of the A&C Act was filed by defendant No.5 – petitioner herein, to the effect that plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,42,000/-as personal loan from it, for which, a loan agreement was entered between them on 16.02.2019, which contained the arbitration clause No.23; since the dispute between the parties could have been decided under the provisions of the A&C Act, the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same; it is further averred that the suit is barred by law; if plaintiff has any grievance then she has right to seek reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator; it is also averred in the application that the plaintiff did not file sufficient court fees also; as per the averments of defendant No.5-petitioner herein no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff and the suit is barred by law, hence the same was liable to be dismissed.

4. The above application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by defendant No.5-petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff filed a suit against seven Banks containing therein that the loan amount credited in plaintiff’s account was transferred to Kishan Hospital and Research Centre. It is submitted that the petitioner in its application has only sought relief for rejection of plaint being barred by law. The petitioner has not made any prayer in terms of Section 8 of the A&C Act to refer the dispute to the Arbitra