1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3409 OF 2009 Vilas Krishna Patil ...Petitioner vs. Sharadchandra Chamanlal Mehta and others ...Respondents Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the petitioner Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.Nayesh Y. Chavan for respondent no.9 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner has filed a suit challenging the agreement of development dated 10th July 1997 and a power of attorney. An application was made by the petitioner at Exh.111. The said application was made at a stage when the part of the cross examination of the petitioner was over. The prayer made in the said application was for referring the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents to an Arbitrator. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a clear arbitration clause in the development agreement dated 10th July 1997. He submitted that in the written statement filed by the respondents, a contention has been raised on the basis of the arbitration clause. He submitted that though the petitioner is willing to go for arbitration, the respondents have not shown willingness. He placed reliance on the assertions made in the written statement. 2 3 After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer. The suit filed by the petitioner is of the year 1998. Written statement was filed in September 1998. On 20th November 2006 an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief was filed by the petitioner. On 8th October 2007, cross examination of the petitioner commenced. Thereafter, on 11th February 2008, an application at Exh.111 was filed. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, the trial Court declined to make a reference to the Arbitrator. This is not a case where interference can be made by exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE