2025:CGHC:59297 Digitally signed by SHAYNA NAFR KADRI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 172 of 2024

1 - Gshan Infrabuild Llp Resident Of Gshan Infrabuild Llp. Registered Office - 7and 8 Sahyadri Hilss Bagadiya Nagadiya Nagar Garkheda Aurangabad (Defendant No

1)

2 - Mr. Ganesh T Saraf Founder And Managing Director Gshan Infrabuild Llp Resident Of Gshan Infrabuild Llp. Registered Office - 7and 8 Sahyadri Hilss Bagadiya Nagadiya Nagar Garkheda Aurangabad

3 - Mrs. Shraddha Saraf Director Resident Of Gshan Infrabuild Llp. Registered Office - 7and 8 Sahyadri Hilss Bagadiya Nagadiya Nagar Garkheda Aurangabad ... Applicants versus

1 - Sunil Agarwal S/o Radheshayam Agrawal Aged About 56 Years Proprietor Dinesh Trading Company R/o Plot No. 39, Industrial State Bhilai Police Station Jamul District - Durg (Plaintiff)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicants : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

05.12.2025

1. This Civil Revision is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), challenging the order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, District - Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 34B/2023. The Trial Court dismissed the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which questioned the maintainability of the suit in light of an existing arbitration agreement between the parties.

2. Facts of the present case, in brevity, are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the Second Additional District Judge, Durg seeking recovery of Rs. 22,53,086/- for supply of materials such as angles, channels, joists, plates, HR plates and PM plates. The defendants filed their written statement denying the transactions and their liability, and specifically contending that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were not responsible for any dealings between defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff. They further objected to the jurisdiction of the Durg Court, asserting that, in view of the terms of the purchase order dated 19.12.2019, particularly the dispute-resolution clause which mandates arbitration and confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts at Aurangabad (Maharashtra), only the Aurangabad Courts are competent. Relying on this clause, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff filed a reply opposing the application. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the defendants’ application on the ground that Clause 20 of the purchase order did not appear to have been incorporated with the plaintiff’s consent. Aggrieved by the rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the defendants have preferred the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the materials were supplied by the plaintiff pursuant to the purchase order dated 19.12.2019, and therefore, notwithstanding the absence of the plaintiff’s signature on the purchase order, the conduct of the parties and their seller–purchaser relationship clearly indicate acceptance of the terms and conditions contained therein. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Madhusudhan Patel & Others v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Others, Arbitration Petition No. 19 of 2024, (2024) LiveLaw (SC) 727, wherein it has been held that the conduct and relationship of non-signatory parties with signatories may evince an intention to be bound by the terms of the contract. It is urged that the plaintiff, having supplied materials pursuant to the purchase order, is bound by its terms, including the dispute- resolution and jurisdiction clauses. It is further contended that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to law, rendering it unsustainable, reliance being placed on Amar Nath Vij v. M/s Bhairav Textiles & Ors.. The applicants, therefore, pray that the revision be allowed, the orde