Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.

Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B. K. Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party.

Delay in moving the revision is condoned.

This revision has been filed against the order dated 20.5.2016 whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in SCC Suit No. 000187 of 2014 has been rejected on the ground that the revisionist has not shown due diligence in bringing on record the plea sought to be raised in the application, and it was found that allowing such a plea to be incorporated in the written statement at a stage when the suit proceedings had progressed to the stage of evidence which was about to close would defeat the expediency of proceedings.

Before entering into other grounds of challenge against the impugned order passed on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it is desirable to answer whether such a plea in the teeth of Section-8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 was at all open to be raised. A question to this effect has cropped up. The reason being that the lease deed postulates an arbitration clause and the plea of arbitration clause being available was not taken before filing of the written statement in order to stop suit proceedings to progress before the court below under the provisions of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. Now at an advanced stage when proceedings have reached the stage of evidence, it is questionable whether raising of such a plea is permissible under law.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the revisionist entered into a lease agreement with the opposite party in respect of the premises in question rented out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/-for a period of five years, subject to other terms and conditions stipulated in the lease dated 27.12.2013. The monthly rent was payable in advance on the first day of every calendar month and various bills/taxes levied by the government and municipality and other local body/authority were liable to be paid by the lessee i.e. the revisionist. The revisionist-lessee as per the allegations made in the plaint was alleged to have breached not only the stipulation of payment of rent but also the dues payable to the local bodies, particularly electricity dues as such, occasion to terminate the tenancy by a written notice arose and tenancy was terminated on 19.7.2014. The tenant-lessee, however, is said to have not responded to the notice of termination of tenancy and continued to remain in arrears of rent as well as the dues towards other heads in terms of the lease deed. The failure to act in response to the notice of termination of tenancy, led to the institution of suit for eviction by the opposite party. The suit was filed in the month of August, 2014 wherein written statement was filed by the revisionist-respondent on 9.3.2015. The suit proceedings progressed further and have reached the stage of evidence with due participation of the parties. However, as aforesaid, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the revisionist whereby the stipulation of arbitration clause was sought to be pleaded through amendment in the written statement.

The application filed by the revisionist was opposed by the opposite party, namely, the plaintiff. The objections filed by the plaintiff clearly stated that a copy of the lease deed being available to the revisionist and its subject matter being known to him, such a defence was open but at this stage, through an amendment, taking the plea would be impermissible. The amendment was also opposed on the strength of the provisions underlying the Order VI Rule 17. The court below, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, has rejected the application by means of the impugned order, giving rise to the present revision.

It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the court below without delving into the subject matter of the application on the touchstone o