THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2324 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revive the order dated 16.04.2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (Sole Arbitrator) in I.A.No.1 of 2010 in Arbitration Claim No.21 of 2010, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for rejecting the claim of the respondent, has been dismissed. The facts, which are relevant for disposal of the revision, are stated as under: The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.324 of 2006 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of the amounts due. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2359 of 2008 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contending that in view of Arbitration Clause i.e., Clause No.33 of Dealership Agreement dated 26.06.1997, the suit cannot be entertained. Accepting the plea of the petitioner, the said I.A was allowed directing the parties to refer the matter to the Arbitrator. Thereafter, the respondent initiated the arbitration proceedings as per the clause in the agreement and appointed an Arbitrator in the said Arbitration Claim, in which, the petitioner filed the above I.A for rejecting the claim of the respondent on the grounds that the claim is barred by the limitation and that the Courts at Lucknow alone have jurisdiction as per the agreement and so the arbitration proceedings have to be initiated at Lucknow only. On dismissal of the said I.A., the petitioner filed this revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire material available on record. Clause 32 of the agreement provides that if any difference or dispute arises between the parties, the same shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Lucknow District and shall be construed according to the Law for time being in force in Lucknow District and such dispute shall be decided by the Courts having jurisdiction in Lucknow District. When the parties themselves agreed that the disputes, if any, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Lucknow, it is implied that the jurisdiction of the other Courts is excluded. Merely because the Arbitrator so appointed is from Hyderabad, the same will not confer jurisdiction to the Courts at Hyderabad. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the Sole Arbitrator dismissing the I.A, has to be challenged in the Courts, which will have jurisdiction in Lucknow District, in accordance with the law in force in Lucknow District. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ______________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 11.08.2011 va