IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.01.2026 Anil Kumar .......... Petitioner Versus Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd;, Sahara India Bhawan, 1-Kapurthala Complex, Lucknow (U.P.) and another .......... Respondents AND (2) Civil Revision No. 141 of 2022 (O&M)

Anil Kumar .......... Petitioner Versus Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd;, Sahara India Bhawan, 1-Kapurthala Complex, Lucknow (U.P.) and another .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Maninderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner-plaintiff (in both cases).

None for the respondents-defendants.

(in both cases).

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose off the present two revision petitions bearing CR Nos. 121 & 141 of 2022 as the same arise out of common impugned order involving identical facts and question of law.

[2] The petitioner(s)-plaintiff(s), by way of present revision petition(s), seek(s) setting aside of an order dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure P-

10) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna (hereinafter to be referred as “trial Court”), whereby an application filed at the instance of respondents-defendants under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “1996 Act”) in Civil Suit Nos. 76 &

78 of 2019 instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff, was allowed.

[3] Briefly stating, the petitioner(s)-plaintiff filed the aforementioned suits for recovery against the respondents-defendants. In the said suits, after being served, the respondents-defendants appeared before the trial Court on 03.10.2019. Thereafter, written statement was filed on 05.12.2019 and the suits were adjourned for filing of replication. In the meanwhile, the respondents-defendants preferred application(s) dated 06.01.2020 under Section 8 of the 1996 Act with a prayer for referring the matter to Arbitration. The prayer made in the said application(s) was opposed at the instance of petitioner-plaintiff. In addition thereto, the plaintiff filed replication(s) before the learned trial Court on 07.02.2020 setting up a plea of fraud being allegedly played upon him at the instance of respondents-defendants. The learned trial Court, vide two separate orders dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure P-10), allowed the application(s) preferred at the instance of respondents-defendants while referring the matter to Arbitration. Aggrieved thereof, the present petition(s) have been preferred at the instance of petitioner(s)-plaintiff.

[4] Despite service, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents-defendants.

[5] I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s)-plaintiff and gone through the paper-book.

[6] A perusal of the record shows that the respondents-defendants appeared before the trial Court on 03.10.2019, the written statement was filed on 05.12.2019 whereas the application(s) in terms of Section 8 of the 1996 Act were preferred at their instance on 06.01.2020. The learned trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2021 allowed the same. The relevant para 6 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“In the present case the applicant while filing the written statement in para no 4 and 6 clearly made reference to arbitration as such never submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court nor waived his right Thus filing of the application in hand subsequent to filing of written statement is of no consequence.”

[7] In the light of the factual matrix as elaborated above, the first question this Court feels necessary to answer is whether an objection in the written statement as to jurisdiction of the Court can be construed to be an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act. This Court is of the view that this question cannot be answered in the affirmative. Merely raising an objection as regards the existence of the arbitration clause for referring the present disputes to arbitration in the written statement cannot be construed to give such objections color of reference under Section 8 of the 1996 Act. A written statement stating