Civil Revision No.2043 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2043 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : September 03, 2009 M/s Dhingra Associates and others ... Petitioners VERSUS Harcharan Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Pankaj Middha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition is directed against the order dated 8.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana, dismissing, the application filed by the defendant – petitioner (herein referred as the petitioner) for rejecting the plaint in view of arbitration clause contained in the agreement. Arguments heard. In case Krishan Kumar Goel vs. National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 150 (P&H), it has been observed as under:- “7. Existence of Arbitration Agreement cannot be a ground Civil Revision No.2043 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] of rejection of the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Rejection is permissible only if the suit is barred by any law. Law means an enacted law by competent legislature and Arbitration Agreement by no stretch of imagination, can be termed to be law so as to invoke the provisions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Similarly, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC have no application. Return of the plaint is permissible, if the Court where the plaint is presented does not have territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. There was no such plea enabling the Court to invoke Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. When any party to the suit pending before a judicial authority raises a plea of existence of alternate redressal forum by way of Arbitration on the basis of alleged agreement in this regard, the remedy is in terms of Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The order impugned is patently illegal and is hereby set aside.” In view of the aforesaid decision, neither the plaint could be rejected, nor it could be returned to the plaintiff – respondent for seeking remedy before the appropriate authority. However, the Apex Court in case Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, 2003(6) SCC 503, observed that if the subject matter of the suit was covered by the agreement, then the Court while deciding the application under Section 8 and 5 of the Arbitration Act could direct to refer the dispute pending in the civil court for arbitration. Civil Revision No.2043 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] As such, this revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application and then the Court will decide the feasibility of referring the matter to the Arbitrator if the terms and conditions of the agreement as also the circumstances so permit. September 03, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE