The main legal point established is that when there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit after an application for arbitration is made under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 20.02.2013 made in O.S.No.3905 of 2011 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the suit and the suit was filed by the first respondent / plaintiff, against the petitioner and the other respondents herein, seeking Judgment and Decree (a) declaring that the reference for arbitration by the second defendant at the behest of the first defendant vide Ref.No.17224/JHN, appointing the third defendant as arbitrator is illegal, unlawful, ab initio, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff (b) for consequential declaration that the third defendant is not empowered to proceed with the claim petition filed by the first defendant as it is illegal, ab initio, null and void.

3. In the aforesaid suit, I.A.No.7604 of 2011 was filed by the first respondent / plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants therein, their men, servants, agents from in any manner proceeding with the arbitration proceeding initiated at the behest of the first respondent in pursuance of the reference made by the second respondent, appointing the third respondent as arbitrator, vide Ref.No.17224/JHN.

4. It is seen from the certified copy of the docket order, that on 20.02.2013, the petition was closed by the Court below, since the suit was dismissed, however, at about 4.30 p.m, on the same day, another docket order came to be passed by the Court below, which reads thus :

"Dismissal order in suit is set aside, hence, restored. For fresh notice to R2 to R7 and counter by 25.02.2013."

5. It is seen that the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.14191 of 2011 was filed in the earlier I.A.No.7604 of 2011 in the suit under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner herein, seeking an order to refer the dispute pertaining to the suit in O.S.No.3905 of 2011 pending before the Court below for Arbitration, in terms of Section 8 read with Section 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and by order, dated 20.02.2013, the said Application was dismissed. However, at about 4.30 p.m, another docket order was passed by the Court below as follows :

"Dismissal order in suit is set aside. Hence restored for Enquiry by 25.02.2013."

The aforesaid order, dated 20.02.2013 made in the suit in O.S.No.3905 of 2011 is under challenge in this revision.

6. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is contrary to law and procedure, which has to be construed as error apparent on the face of record, hence, liable to be set aside. There was no notice issued to the petitioner herein before passing the subsequent order on 20.02.2013, which is against principles of natural justice and also contrary to Order 9 Rule 9 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the Court below has erred in restoring the suit in O.S.No.3905 of 2011, on the memo filed by the first respondent herein, even without any petition being filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and without issuing notice and providing opportunity to the petitioner / D1 and other defendants in the suit. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the suit itself is not maintainable, as it is statutorily barred, in view of the arbitration clause, as per the agreement between the parties.

7. The relief sought for in the suit is for declaring that the reference for arbitration by the second defendant at the behest of the first defendant vide Ref.No.17224/JHN, appointing the third defendant as arbitrator as illegal, unlawful, ab initio, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and consequential declaration that the third defendant is not empowered to proceed with the claim petition filed by t