Hon'ble TRIVEDI, J.—With the contents of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.

2. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 08/10/2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for convenience) in civil Suit No.107/2013, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

3. The short facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the respondent-plaintiff and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had entered into a lease and licence agreement dated 11.09.2007 for installation, modification, deinstallation and maintaining the equipment for providing telecommunication services upon the terrace/vacant space and on the ground space together with the space for laying cable trays and cables on the exterior portion of the building in the premises as described in the said agreement. The said agreement was signed by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as the Licensor and the respondent as the Licensee. As per one of the conditions being the condition No.15, the said parties had agreed to refer the disputes which may arise out of the said agreement to the arbitrator. The said condition contained in the agreement reads as under:-

“15. ARBITRATION

It is mutually agreed between the Parties, that in the event of any dispute, or differences in the matter of interpretation, execution or carrying out the objects and functions under this Agreement, the same shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, to be appointed by TTL. The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, including its statutory modification and reenactment in force from time to time, shall apply to the proceedings which shall be conducted in English and the venue of such proceedings shall be at Jaipur the decision of such sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the Parties. For all matters concerning this Agreement, only the competent courts at Jaipur shall have the exclusive jurisdiction”.

4. It appears that the disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit against the present petitioners-defendants seeking permanent injunction for restraining the petitioners-defendants from causing any obstruction to the respondent-plaintiff in the use of the mobile tower or from removing the equipments placed by the respondent-plaintiff on the said mobile tower at the disputed premises. Since the respondent-plaintiff had relied upon the said lease and licence agreement dated 11th September, 2007 in the plaint itself, the petitioners-defendants relying upon Clause 15 of the agreement in question, submitted an application before the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 8 of the said Act praying inter-alia to reject the plaint, or to refer the subject matter of the suit to the arbitrator. The said application was resisted by the respondent-plaintiff by filing the reply contending inter-alia that though the said agreement was entered into between the respondent on the one hand and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on the other hand, no such agreement was entered into with the petitioner No.3-defendant No.3, and therefore, the provisions contained in Section 8 of the said Act would not applicable. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, dismissed the said application of the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 8/10/2013, which is under challenge before this Court by way of present revision petition.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Sudesh Bansal appearing for the petitioners that though the agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on one