IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 574 of 2011 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. and another. … Petitioners. Versus Agarwal Auto Traders … Respondent. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Dhingra and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent. Date April 04, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of today itself at admission stage without counter version. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16- 3-2011 passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Arbitration Case NO. 2 of 2011 Agarwal Auto Traders Vs. John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. and another (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) was moved by the opposite party-respondent and the Court had granted an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the application under Section 9 of the Act. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that there is an exclusion clause in the dealership agreement executed between the parties that only the 2 courts at Pune have exclusive jurisdiction over the disputes arising out of the agreement dated 31-8-2007 and the petitioners have also filed objection against the application under Section 9 of the Act before the court concerned. Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted in his reply that since the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the case at hand and it is also an admitted fact that in the new Act, like Section 41 of the old Act that C.P.C. is not applicable so far as procedure pat in the matter before the arbitration Tribunal is concerned. Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 9 of the Act, a party may before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced apply to the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district for obtaining any interim relief. He also submitted that as per provisions of Section 5 extent of judicial intervention is provided in Section 5 of the Act, which reads as under:- “5. Extent of judicial intervention.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.” Learned counsel, therefore, argued that the remedy available to the petitioners is to file objection before the principal civil Court that it is not having jurisdiction to try the matter as per agreement clause and the same question shall be decided under Section 9 of the Act. He further submitted that since the provisions of the C.P.C. are not applicable In view of the above fact, the application under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. was not maintainable and the order passed on the application under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 16- 3 3-2011, passed on the application moved under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. by the court below is liable to be set aside for the simple reason that the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable to the case at hand and the application moved by the petitioner was not maintainable. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the principal civil Court shall decide the application under Section 9 of the respondent, considering the objection of the petitioners, including that of the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with law expeditiously, either on the next date fixed in the case or thereafter, without further delay in the matter and without being influenced by the impugned order. The impugned order dated 16-3-2011 is quashed accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP