IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND (22ND ) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4391 of 2009 Between: M/s Gati Limited … Petitioner And: The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., & another … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4391 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.07.2009 in IA No.658 of 2009 in OS No.554 of 2008 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-defendant under Order VII rule 11 read with Section 8(1) Arbitration and Conciliation Act for seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of Rs.3,43,000/-. The defendant filed IA No.658 of 2009 seeking return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the terms and conditions of the consignment note stipulates that in case of difference or dispute, the same shall be resolved under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as such, the suit is not maintainable. 4. The respondent filed counter contending inter-alia that the petitioner has not raised any such objection when the claim was lodged against them by the plaintiff and they have waived the arbitration clause and therefore, the suit is maintainable. They further contended that they are not bound by the terms and conditions mentioned on the back of the consignment note, since there is no specific contract between the parties about the binding nature of the clause mentioned on the back of the consignment note. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the arbitration clause in the consignment note is printed on the reverse of the document in small letters, that it is not possible to any one to read them without magnifying glasses and there is no signature of the consignor on the reverse of the conditions and as such, it is not practicable to any one to know the terms and conditions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in ‘ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem[1]’, wherein the apex Court held that ‘the general terms and conditions printed over leaf containing a clause making dispute subject to jurisdiction of particular court, clause formed part of the agreement when the agreement is subject to terms and conditions over-leaf’. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the consignment note stipulates on the front page itself that the parties have carefully checked and verified the contents filled in that docket and agreed to terms and conditions printed over leaf, especially, the clause of jurisdiction and will pay all the charges as per the tariff agreement. Admittedly, the consignment note was duly signed by the plaintiff. No doubt, the terms and conditions are printed on the reverse of the consignment note, but endorsement on the front page, which is duly signed by the parties would show that the parties have agreed to the terms and conditions printed on the overleaf. That they are printed in small letters is of no relevance. When once the parties have agreed to certain terms and conditions and signed the consignment note accordingly, they cannot say now that because the terms and conditions are printed in the small letters, it is not possible to have knowledge of them. The ground on which the petition was dismissed mainly that because of the terms and conditions printed in small letters on the reverse, and it does not contain the signature of the consignor is unsustainable. The trial Court did not however consider that aspect as to whether or not the plaint is liable for rejection under any of the grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 7. The defendant seeks rejection of the plaint by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The question as to whether or not the stipulation for recourse to the arbitration bars the suit and renders the plaint liable for rejection in terms of Order VII rule 11 CPC has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, it is considered a fit case where the matter has to be remanded to the trial court for consideration afresh and record a specific finding as to whether or not the plaint is liable for rejection under Order VII rule 11 CPC. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal of IA No.658 of 2009 in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 22.02.2011 bss [1] AIR 1989 SC 1239