1. The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town dated 16.11.2004 made in I.A. No. 54 of 2003 in O.S. No.1477 of 1996.

2. The first respondent herein has filed the Suit in O.S. No.1477 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town against the petitioner and the second respondent for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from enforcing the bank guarantee dated 12.4.1988 and restraining the second respondent herein from making payment of the amount covered by the bank guarantee dated 12.4.1988 to the petitioner herein and for costs. In the said Suit, the petitioner, who was the first defendant, has filed an Application in I.A. No.54 of 2003 under Section 8(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The case of the petitioner is that the agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent herein contains an arbitration clause. Hence, an Application in I.A. No.196 of 2001 was filed earlier under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act invoking the said arbitration clause. At the time of filing the said Application, according to the petitioner herein, the sole Arbitrator, who is to be nominated by the Northern Railway, has not been appointed and hence, the petitioner has sought the assistance of the Court "to refer the parties to the arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties to the sole Arbitrator being an Officer of the Northern Railway in respect of the dispute raised in this Suit." When the above Application was pending for an enquiry, the petitioner has averred that a decision was pronounced by this Court in Mankanner Jain School Welfare Society v. Anilkumar J. Doshi, 2001(2) LW 572 The said judgment exhaustively dealt with innumerable decisions of the Apex Court, our High Court and other High Courts in respect of the scope of Section 8 and other related provisions of the Arbitration Act. Taking note of the above said principle, it is further averred in the said affidavit that the General Manager, Northern Railway invoking the arbitration clause has appointed the sole Arbitrator, namely, Shri P.K. Goyal, Dy.CE/TS-1, Baroda House, New Delhi, for settlement of disputes between the parties. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Application under Section 8(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying the Court below not to proceed with the Suit any further and direct the parties to agitate their rights before the sole Arbitrator already appointed.

3. A detailed counter has been filed by the first respondent opposing the said Application. In the said counter, it has been stated that the petitioner has already filed an Application in I.A. No.144 of 1988 on 15.3.1988 for stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. Even though the Suit was pending before the Subordinate Court for more than 15 years, the petitioner has not moved for arbitration proceedings by appointing an Arbitrator. Further, the first respondent has denied about the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. Further, in the said counter it has been stated that the petitioner has already filed an Application in I.A. No.196 of 2001 to refer the parties to arbitration and hence, the present Application without withdrawing the earlier Application is not at all maintainable. Learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town by his order dated 16.11.2004 dismissed the said Application and the present Revision is directed against the said order.

4. I have heard N. Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Ms. S. Srimathy, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

5. Mr. N. Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the though I.A. No.144 of 1988 has been filed under Section 34 of the