JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide which the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) was set aside and the application filed by the respondent under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement in the nature of a unit franchise agreement vide Annexure P-7 dated 01.11.2022 and by way of the aforesaid agreement, the respondent which is the main company had given a franchisee to the petitioner for the purpose of coaching etc. There were number of conditions forming part of the agreement, which were binding upon both the parties. He submitted that the aforesaid unit franchise agreement also contains an arbitration clause under Article XXVIII, Clause 4, which provides that any and all disputes arising out of or in relation to or in connection with the agreement between the parties or relating to the performance or non-performance of the rights and obligations set forth or the breach, termination, invalidity or interpretation thereof shall be referred for arbitration in New Delhi in accordance with the terms of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendments thereof. He further submitted that although the aforesaid unit franchise agreement contains an arbitration clause but considering the fact that there were a large number of violations of the terms and conditions of the agreement and cheating conducted by the respondent against the petitioner, which involved intricate factual disputes, the petitioner filed a civil suit vide Annexure P-1 seeking declaration and permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from allotting any unit franchise to anyone in the surrounding area of 50 kms. of the petitioner- Institute. He also submitted that when the aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner, the respondent herein, who was the defendant therein moved an application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Act seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground of existence of the aforesaid arbitration clause.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul vide order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), while deciding the aforesaid application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Act, dismissed the same on the ground that the Civil Court has the power to try a civil suit under Section 9 of CPC, which is a wider power. He submitted that thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul and vide judgment dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-6), the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, acting as the appellate authority, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul and remitted the matter back to the learned trial Court to reconsider the application filed by the respondent under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Act afresh in the light of the observations which the learned Appellate Court had made. It is the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court vide Annexure P-6 dated 12.09.2025, which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition.

4. Mr. Mittal further submitted that the allegations against the respondent involved mixed questions of law and fact requiring detailed evidence to be adduced with regard to the allegations pertaining to violation of various terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the respondent’s act of cheating in setting up another Institute and siphonin