ORDER

K. Sujana, J. - The present revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of the Sole Arbitrator, whereunder, the petitioner herein who is the respondent in Arbitration Application No.198 of 2021 filed a petition before the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act, 1996') praying to decide the arbitrability of the claims which are based on insufficiently stamped document and an unregistered lease agreement dated 01.05.2018 executed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who are claimants in the said Arbitration Application.

2. The brief facts of the case are that vide proceedings dated 19.11.2022 from the pre-trial enquiry for settlement of issues and marking of documents and for taking further steps, the Arbitral Tribunal, having heard both sides at length with reference to the submissions on what documents to mark with consent or without consent, framed six issues in total and decided to mark Exs.C1-C22 and Exs.R1-R24, some of which were marked subject to objection. It is contended that Ex.C1 is a copy of the Hospital Lease Agreement (Claim Statement enclosure page Nos.13-29) dated 01.05.2018 which was marked subject to objection raised with regard to stamp duty and registration of the same, for otherwise, the contents admitted by respondent/petitioner herein.

3. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is preferred by respondent in Arbitration Application No.198 of 2021 stating that the Arbitral Tribunal ought to have framed and decided the issue of arbitrability of claims as a preliminary issue so as to avoid the unnecessary protraction of Arbitration proceedings since there would remain no necessity of leading evidence and considering the same, in case, the claims are held to be non-arbitrable. That apart, the Arbitral Tribunal failed to consider that the claims made by petitioner herein against the respondents herein with regard to the inadmissibility of document as the same was based on insufficiently stamped document and an unregistered lease agreement based on oral understanding, alleged to have been entered into between the parties, subsequent to the lease agreement, thereby, making the claims ex facie not maintainable for the reason that the written lease agreement dated 01.05.2018 is void and inadmissible in law. Further, the Arbitral Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that Arbitration cannot be continued until the lease agreement is properly stamped as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1872.

4. Heard Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for petitioner, and Mr. Kishore Rai, learned senior counsel representing Ms. Divya Rai Sohni, learned counsel for respondents.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the Arbitral Tribunal has erroneously marked Ex.C1 without considering the fact that the same is an unstamped document, as such, it cannot be taken into consideration. In support of the said contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Vs. Bangalore, Karnataka, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1666, whereunder, in paragraph Nos.133 to 137 the relevant subject was discussed at length and in connection thereof, learned counsel for petitioner asserted that in paragraph No.234 - Conclusions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an objection raised with regard to the stamping of document does not fall for determination under Sections 8 or 11 of the Act, 1996, and the concerned Court must examine whether the arbitration agreement prima facie exists. In other words, any objections raised in relation to the stamping of the agreement falls within the ambit of the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.

6. In view of the above, learned counsel for petitioner contended that as Ex.C1 is an insufficiently stamped document, the Tribunal ough