The mere existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not automatically bar a civil suit, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted solely based on the existence of an arbitration clause.

1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006 passed in Money Appeal No. 2 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar whereunder the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2005 and 16.09.2005 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Money Suit No. 1 of 2004 dismissing the suit of the appellant.

2. At the time of admission of this appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed:

(i) Whether both the learned Appellate Court and the trial Court erred in law while passing the impugned judgment by misinterpreting and misconstruing the document marked Exbt.D dated 09.08.1999 issued by the respondent No. 3, or not?

(ii) Is the suit not maintainable on the ground of existence of the arbitration clause in the contract agreement between the parties?

3. There is no dispute that the suit instituted by the appellant was for realization of the amount of Rs. 1,74,215/- for which a bill was submitted through Junior Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Sub-Division No. IV to the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Sub Division No. IV, Dharmanagar but the same was not paid on the ground that the claim of the appellant was not permissible under the agreement. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the appellant filed the suit and the respondents also filed written statement questioning the maintainability of the suit. The learned trial Court after considering the petition of the parties framed the following issues, which are as follows:-

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration that letter No. F.12(4)/PHE/C-II/2059 dated 18.07.03 issued by defendant no.3 and letter No. F.10(115)/EE/PHE/D-II/2212, dated 31.7.03 issued by defendant no.4 are illegal, unauthorized, unlawful, unenforceable and null and void?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree in the suit?

(iv) What other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to get?

4. The learned trial Court decided the issue no. (i) against the plaintiff holding that the suit is hit by the arbitration clause no. 25 appended with the agreement. The learned trial Court also decided issue no. (ii) and (iii) against the plaintiff in view of the decision in issue no. (i). Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division i.e. the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the First Appeal being Money Appeal no. 2 of 2005 wherein the learned appellate Court after hearing the parties and considering the impugned judgment therein dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of the trial Court.

5. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:

The appellant being enlisted contractor entered into an agreement with respondent no.4 for construction of urban water supply scheme at Dharmanagar/laying of rising main line from water treatment plant at Huruah, Dharmanagar over head tanks / construction of 2 nos. steel bridge including abutments over river Kakri and Juri (2nd call) and ultimately the said work was awarded to the plaintiff appellant on the basis of negotiation held between the plaintiff appellant and respondent no.3. After completion of the said negotiation, respondent no.3 changed the terms of the negotiation behind the back of the plaintiff appellant without the consent of the plaintiff appellant by way of inserting an extra clause namely ‘Variation in respect of design of steel at the rate of 2% either on higher or lower site shall be accepted without any involvement of expenditure. No extra claim shall be entertained for use of any excess quantity of steel beyond 2%’ and included the changed terms and conditions (Exbt.-D) with the agreement. The plaintiff appellant completed the work as per terms and conditions in the agreement and finally submitted his bill amountin