1. The Petitioner/Defendant has focussed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 01.10.2012 in I.A. No. 999 of 2010 in O.S. No. 84 of 2010 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sankagiri in dismissing the Application.

2. Being dissatisfied with the Order of dismissal dated 01.10.2012 in I.A. No. 999 of 2010 in O.S. No. 84 of 2010 passed by the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has projected the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court primarily contending that the Trail Court failed to appreciate that the I.A. No. 999 of 2010 in O.S. No. 84 of 2010 was filed by the Petitioner/Defendant in terms of the loan agreement dated 24.12.2007 entered into between the parties and further that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted by virtue of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Bank urges before this Court that the Trial Court had overlooked a vital fact that the relief sought for in the main suit as well as the cause of action paragraph mentioned in the Plaint relates to an arbitral dispute covered under the loan agreement dated 24.12.2007.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the Trial Court should not have dismissed the I.A. No. 999 of 2010 in O.S. No. 84 of 2010 contrary to the tenure and spirit of Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully contends that in terms of the Loan Agreement dated 24.12.2007 entered into between the parties, a Court of Law is bound to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of the contract and in this regard, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and determine the disputes pertaining to the contractual obligations.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 speaks Extent of Judicial Intervention and in fact no Judicial Authority was intervened except where so provided in Part (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. To lend support to the contention that no Judicial Authority was intervened except whereso provided in Part (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant (Bank) relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 2881 whereby and whereunder it is observed as follows:-

The language of Section 8 is peremptory in nature. Therefore, in cases where there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, it is obligatory for the Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided in the original action after such an application is made except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. Therefore, it is clear that if, as contended by a party in an agreement between the parties before the Civil Court, there is a clause for arbitration, it is mandatory for the Civil Court to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. In the instant case the existence of an arbitral clause in the agreement is accepted by both the parties as also by the lower Courts. If that be so, in view of the mandatory language of Section 8 of the Act, the Courts below ought to have referred the dispute to arbitration Section 16 has empowered the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction including rule on any objection with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. It is clear from the language of the Section, that if there is any objection as to the applicability of the arbitration clause to the facts of the case, the same will have to be raised before the concerned Arbitral Tribunal. The Civil Court should not embark upon an inquiry in regard to the applicability of the arbitration clause to the facts of the case.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Hindustan Petroleu