The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted in a dispute not covered by Section 7-B (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, even if the dispute is related to a telephone connection.

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS are the appellants against a reversing judgement in a suit for injunction. Plaintiff filed the suit for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from disconnecting the telephone number Cuttack 21127 for non-payment of arrear dues in respect of Phone number Cuttack 1995 as the plaintiff have no connection with aforesaid telephone number Cuttack 1995. Plaintiff's case in brief is that he was the Managing Partner of Messrs Beharilal Shyamsunder and was the subscriber of Telephone number CK-21127 and was regularly paying all the dues in respect of the said telephone. There was no default on his part in paying the bills, but he received a notice on 7-11-1979 from the authorities of the Telephone Department wherein it was mentioned that the outstanding amount of Rs. 4,247. 30 in respect of Telephone Number CK-1995 if not paid by 20-11-1979 then the plaintiff's telephone number Ck-21127 would be disconnected. It was alleged in the plaint that telephone number Ck-1995 belonged to Utkal Loom Industries with which the plaintiff has no connection and, therefore, his telephone bearing number Ck-21127 cannot be disconnected for non-payment of the dues of some other telephone connection. Since the plaintiff apprehended disconnection of his telephone line, he filed the suit.

( 2 ) THE defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and it was their plea that Shyamsundar Bajoria, the Managing Partner of the plaintiff-firm was also in management of the Utkal Loom Industries Cooperative Society Limited to whom Telephone Number Ck-1995 had been provided and, therefore, plaintiff's telephone is liable to be disconnected for non-payment of the dues in respect of the other telephone bearing number Ck-1995. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the statute having provided for an arbitration of any dispute, the suit is not maintainable.

( 3 ) ON these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed as many as 7 issues and on issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 came to hold that Shyamsundar Bajoria was not the owner or in charge of both the establishments, nor was it established that both the phones are under his control. He further found that both the establishments are different and, therefore, giving notice to the plaintiff demanding to pay the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 4,247. 30 is unwarranted and the plaintiff is not liable to pay the outstanding dues for the phone number Ck-1995. But so far as issue no. 3 is concerned, after noticing the provision of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, he came to hold that the suit is not maintainable as the aggrieved party has to avail the remedy available under Sec. 7-B (1) of the Act. Thus, even though on merits the trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff, but on the question of maintainability, it having found that Civil Court has no jurisdiction, dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. The learned District Judge came to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that there is any dispute regarding plaintiff's telephone number Ck-21127 which was sought to be disconnected and, therefore, the plaintiff's action cannot be thrown out on the ground that the dispute has to be referred to arbitration under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. He further found that the defendants not having taken any steps as required under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Civil Court will continue to have its jurisdiction and accordingly allowed the appeal. Hence the present second appeal by the defendants.

( 5 ) MR. A. B. Misra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union Government, contends that the provisions of the Arbitration Act are not applicable to an arbitration contemplated under S. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and, therefore, the learned District Judge committed an error in entertaining the suit and deciding the lis.

( 6 ) SO far as the first c