Civil Revision No.6715 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.6715 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : April 17, 2009 Mukhtiar Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Goodluck Advances & Finlease Private Limited and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Shivraj Angi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mukand Gupta, Advocate. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition has arisen out of the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Heard. The defendants – respondents moved an application under Section 8 read with other appropriate Sections of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 stating that as per the hire-purchase agreement between the parties, all the disputes, differences in respect of rights, claim and obligations of the parties, including disputes touching the Civil Revision No.6715 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] interpretation, operation or affect of any of the clauses or terms and conditions of the agreement, were to be referred to one of the Arbitrators, mentioned in the panel, therefore, before filing the suit, the matter in question must have been referred to the Arbitrator. It is contended that Clause 27 of the said agreement should have been complied with by the petitioner before filing the suit. The said application was contested. However, the Trial court accepted the application and returned the plaint. Admittedly, the Trial Court did not follow the procedure as provided under Order VII Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure before returning the plaint. Now, in such a situation, the question to be determined is that, “whether the revision petition is maintainable?” In this regard, attention of this court is drawn to Order XLIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is reproduced as under:- “1.Appeals from orders .- An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely:- (a) an order under rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court [except where the procedure specified in rule 10-A of order VII has been followed];” In the case in hand, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Trial Court while returning the plaint has not followed the procedure as specified in Rule 10-A of Order VII of the Civil Revision No.6715 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, certainly the revision petition could not be maintained and only the appeal could be filed. Accepting this argument to be correct, the order must be treated as passed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, against which only an appeal was maintainable and not revision petition as provided under Order XLIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the petition is dismissed. April 17, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE