P.R. Shivakumar, J.

1. This revision arises out of an order of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 21.10.2013 made in I.A. No.236/2013 in O.S. No.41 of 2011. The revision petitioner-M/s. G.Jawahar Enterprises, a Partnership firm filed the above said original suit in the lower court for the reliefs of declaration and injunction in respect of three contracts for supply of Indian raw cotton to Glencore Grain B.V. Netherelands, the first respondent herein/first defendant. The contracts are:-

1) GJE/GLEN/44/09-10 dated 18.02.2010 for 1500 MT

2) GJE/GLEN/45/09-10 dated 19.02.2010 for 1000 MT

3) GJE/GLEN/11/10-11 dated 06.01.2009 for 4000 MT

2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff in the said suit sought for: (1)a declaration that all the three contracts, including the arbitration clauses contained therein, had become null and void, inoperative and incapable of performance owing to supervening impossibility and force majeure situation resulting from the Press Note No. 1/162/2010/Cotton/Vol.IV/357 dated 19.04.2010 issued by the Textile Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India; (2)for an injunction restraining the first respondent/first defendant from in any manner enforcing or claiming enforcement of the said contracts including the arbitration clause; (3) for an injunction restraining the first respondent/first defendant from instituting or prosecuting any legal proceedings including arbitration outside the Republic of India in respect of the above said contracts and (4) a permanent injunction restraining the International Cotton Association, namely the second respondent/second defendant from entertaining and conducting any arbitration proceeding and passing awards in respect of the above said suit contracts.

3. The first respondent herein/first defendant, who came to know the institution of the suit by the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff, filed a petition as I.A. No.236/2013 in the above said suit O.S. No.41/2011 under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for an order referring the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant to arbitration before the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the second respondent/second defendant under its bylaws and rules. The petition was opposed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The second respondent/second defendant remained neutral.

4. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, upon hearing the contesting parties, passed the impugned order dated 21.10.2013 allowing the said application, namely I.A. No.236/2013 and directing the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the first respondent herein/first defendant to arbitration as prayed for in the petition. Consequently, a decree was passed on the same day closing the suit. As against the same, the present revision has been preferred.

5. The point that arises for consideration in the revision is:

"Whether the court below has committed any error or illegality in directing the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

6. The arguments advanced by Mr. Karthick Seshathri for M/s. Iyer and Thomas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.P.S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Satish Parasaran, counsel on record, the first respondent/first defendant were heard. The order of the court below and other materials available in the form of typed set of papers were also perused.

7. The admitted facts are as follows:

The revision petitioner/plaintiff is a firm dealing in Indian raw cotton and it had several business dealings with the first respondent/first defendant, an overseas purchaser having its office in Netherlands. As many as ten contracts came to be entered into between them from 18.11.2009 and 19.03.2010. They had no problem in performing the first seven contracts entered into between them from 18.11.2009. However th