ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 11th March, 2024 (hereinafter “impugned order”) passed by the learned Civil Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in civil suit bearing CS SCJ no.

1648/19.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside since the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3. It is submitted that on 2nd November, 2018, the petitioner had taken admission in the respondent i.e., FIIT JEE (hereinafter “respondent Centre”) and made a payment of a sum of Rs. 1,88,193/- towards fees.

4. It is further submitted that at the time of the admission, the petitioner was assured by the respondent Centre that in the event he is not satisfied with the services of the respondent Centre, he can request for a refund of the fees.

5. It is submitted that since the petitioner was dissatisfied with the services provided by the respondent Centre, he requested for a refund of the fees and denial of the same led the petitioner, i.e., the plaintiff to file the aforesaid civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a recovery of Rs. 1,88,193/- from the respondent, i.e., the defendant.

6. It is submitted that in the above said civil suit, the respondent filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “the Act”) seeking reference of the dispute for arbitration in terms of the agreement executed among the parties.

7. It is submitted that whilst adjudicating upon the aforesaid application, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s suit without taking into consideration the entirety of the matter as well as the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner therein.

8. It is submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that it is not only the arbitral clause that is invalid; rather the whole agreement is invalid, as the signatures of the petitioner and his father were taken fraudulently and dishonestly on multiple pages by the officials of the respondent Centre.

9. It is submitted that the aforesaid agreement is invalid and the said dispute is in the nature of a civil dispute, the issue in question of which can only be decided by the Court of civil jurisdiction irrespective of the arbitration clause.

10. It is also vehemently argued that certain judgments, which were placed before the learned Trial Court have not been properly considered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, during the arguments, relied upon paragraph 14 of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vijay Vishwanath Talwar v. Mashreq Bank, PSC, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 962 submitting to the effect that the entire agreement which has been signed by the parties is contrary to the law and therefore, the said agreement may be declared null and void.

11. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that a civil Court is bestowed upon the discretionary powers to refuse to refer a matter for arbitration if it is satisfied that the issue to be decided pertains to allegation of fraud or involves a complicated question of fact or law.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the reasons assigned by the learned Court below while deciding the application under Section 8 of the Act for rejecting the suit is illegal, being contrary to the settled position of law, therefore, the said impugned order is liable to be set aside.

13. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the instant petition may be allowed, and the relief