R. Dayal, J.

We have heard Mr. S.N. Mukherjee for appellant and Mr. Sunil Mitra for respondent No. 1 as regards the maintainability of the appeal.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd December 1996 of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Civil Suit No. 93(A) of 1996 whereby an application made by the appellant, who is defendant No. 1 in the Civil Suit, under s. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was rejected on the ground that reliefs have been claimed in the Civil Suit against respondent No. 2 as well who is not a party to the arbitration agreement even when reliefs can only be granted in the presence of the appellant. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the appeal is not maintainable for the reason that s. 37(1) of the Act does not specify an order passed under s. 8 as an order from which an appeal is permissible. According to the learned Counsel, since subs. (1) of said s. 37(1) provides for appeals only against those orders which are specified thereunder and further stipulates that an appeal does not lie from any other order an appeal does not lie from an order of a class not