These three Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs, in all the three Appeals, are the dealers/distributors of the appellant with respect to procurement, storage, distribution and sale of Kerosene Oil and Super Kerosene Oil. Certain disputes with respect to the location for shifting of the distribution points arose between the parties, which led the respondents/plaintiffs to file their separate individual suits in the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court received and entertained the suits, and in the accompanying applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C., granted ad interim injunction against the appellant and in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The appellant filed Written Statements also in the three suits in which a specific plea was taken that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the civil suits in view of the fact that there was, in existence between the parties, an arbitration agreement which required that all disputes and differences as well as questions between the parties would be adjudicated upon and resolved through arbitration. Having regard to such a preliminary objection in the Written and resolved through arbitration. Having regard to such a preliminary objection in the Written Statements, the learned Trial Court framed the following issue for consideration and adjudication.

“Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act? If so, its effect?”

3. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order held as under:

“Hence, as per agreement, the dispute between the parties needs to be referred to the contention of defendants is acceptable, because the provisions of the Act clearly show that when there is any arbitration clause in the contract between the parties, then the dispute arising out of the contract shall be heard by arbitrator and Civil Court will have no jurisdiction.”

4. Finally, while disposing of the Suit, based upon its finding on Issue No.1, the learned court below held as under:

“Accordingly, this Preliminary Issue is decided in the positive in favour of defendants and it is hereby held that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the parties and defendants are directed to refer the matter to the arbitrator within a period of one month.”

5. Having decided Issue No. 1 in the aforesaid manner and having disposed of the Suit as indicated herein above by clearly holding that the existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties gave rise to a situation where the disputes had to be settled through arbitration, as regards the question relating to the grant of temporary injunction and its continuance etc., the learned court below in the course of the impugned order held as under:

“As regards the temporary injunction already granted, there is no dispute about the position that this is a matter within the purview of Civil Court now at this stage and the order about temporary injunction of this Court will remain in force till the matter is finally decided by the arbitrator. In these circumstances, it is also necessary that the defendants be also directed to refer the matter to arbitrator as per agreement clause immediately who will decide the dispute between the parties as per agreement and the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”

6. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind and I have no hesitation in saying so that the learned court below patently erred in assuming jurisdiction about the grant of temporary injunction as well as its continuance.

7. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’ for short) completely and totally bars the jurisdiction of every judicial authority, which means and includes a civil court, with respect to any matter which is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement. Section 5 reads thus:

“5. Extent of judicial intervention. – Notwithstanding anything cont