Judgment On Board

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 09/08/2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2013 whereby the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1996) has been allowed and consequently, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

2.1. Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,00,000/- along with 18% interest from 14/05/2009 stating inter alia that the appellant/plaintiff is a construction company and they were given work order for construction of underground tunnel on 15/03/2008 and the total cost of work was Rs. 24,00,000/-. Even after completion of entire work, payment of Rs. 11,00,000/- is still outstanding and it is not being paid by the respondent/defendant despite several demands being made by the appellant/plaintiff, hence, the civil suit had to be filed vide Annexure A/2.

2.2. Respondent/defendant filed its written statement (Annexure A/3) and opposed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff on merits and further filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 8 of the Act of 1996 on 18/07/2016 (Annexure A/4) submitÝng in substance that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is not maintainable for the reason that as per clause 15 of the work agreement executed between the parties, there is provision for settlement of dispute through arbitration in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act of 1996, as such, the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be rejected.

2.3. Appellant/plaintiff filed reply (Annexure A/5) and opposed the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 8 of the Act of 1996 stating that though there is an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, but there is no provision in the agreement to establish that the dispute cannot be dispose of by the Civil Court, as such, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore, the application filed by the respondent/defendant is liable to be rejected.

2.4. Learned trial Court, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 09/08/2017 (Annexure A/1), rejected the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff by allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 8 of the Act of 1996 holding that as per clause 15 of the agreement, the dispute has to be settled through arbitration.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for the appellant/plain would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the plaint by granting the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 8 of the Act of 1996. He would further submit that if Section 8(1) of the Act of 1996 has to be invoked, matter has to be referred to the Arbitrator after ascertaining that there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the plaint of the appellant/plaintiff is liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant appearing through video conferencing, would support the impugned judgment and decree and submit that the instant is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspecti