Civil Revision No. 2412 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2412 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.4.2010 Bhakhra Beas Management Board and another .. Petitioners v. Davinder Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiffs are before this court impugning the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby in a suit filed by them, on an application filed by the respondent-defendant, the matter has been referred for arbitration. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from changing the structure of shop No. 46, situated in Main Market, Nangal Townshop or from raising any sort of construction thereon. In the aforesaid suit, before filing the written statement, the respondent filed application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the matter in dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of the lease agreement signed between the parties. The learned trial court accepted the application filed by the respondent and directed the matter to be referred to the Arbitrator. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned trial court was dismissed by the learned lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that clause 16 of the lease agreement provided for a very limited arbitration. It is stated that the stamp duty for the lease agreement was to be borne by the lessor. In that very clause, it was mentioned that any dispute that may arise between the lessor and the lessee was to be referred for arbitration. In the present case, the suit was filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for injunction restraining the respondent from changing the structure of shop No. 46, situated in Main Market, Nangal Township or from raising any sort of construction thereon. That issue cannot possibly be referred to arbitration. Civil Revision No. 2412 of 2010 [2] After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The language of the lease agreement signed between the parties does not lead to the conclusion as is sought to be projected by learned counsel for the petitioners. The words used in the lease agreement are quite exhaustive. It talks about reference of any dispute between the lessor and the lessee. Merely because of certain typographical setting, it has been mentioned in continuation of one clause, which otherwise may not have any relevance for arbitration, it cannot be opined that there being no arbitration clause in the lease agreement, the matter could not be referred to arbitration. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.4.2010 mk