HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.R.P.NOs.3922 AND 3927 OF 2010 Dt.2.9.2010 C.R.P.NO.3922 OF 2010 Between: Dulam Anantha Lakshmi ..Petitioner And Tammina Paramatma ..Respondent C.R.P.NO.3927 OF 2010 Between: Dulam Anantha Lakshmi ..Petitioner And Tammina Paramatma ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.R.P.NOs.3922 AND 3927 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) These two civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against similar orders dated 7.8.2010 in I.A.No.611 of 2010 in O.S.No.112 of 2006 and I.A.No.610 of 2010 in O.S.No.6 of 2006 respectively on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. The said I.As., were filed under Section 89(1)(a) and Section 151 C.P.C to formulate terms of settlement by the court and refer the same for arbitration as per the terms of the partnership deed. The said applications were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner earlier filed C.R.P.Nos.918 of 2010 and 921 of 2010 on the file of this Court in the aforesaid suits O.S.Nos.6 of 2006 and 112 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, and the said revision petitions were dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move before the court below for appropriate relief in accordance with law. This Court observed in the said revision petitions that admittedly the petitioner filed written statements in the suits without raising any objection as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) confers power on the Court to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement, provided, a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute. Then the Court can refer the parties to arbitration. Further, under Section 8(2) of the Act, the application referred to in sub- section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. Even under Order X Rule 1-A C.P.C., the Court after recording the admissions and denials direct the parties to the suit to opt for either mode of the settlement outside the Court as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 89 and on such option of the parties, the Court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties. This Court held that the grievance ventilated by the petitioner cannot be decided in the said revisions and accordingly the revisions were dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court below for appropriate relief in accordance with law. The petitioners approached the court below by filing applications under Section 89(1)(a) read with Section 151 C.P.C to formulate the terms of settlement and refer the same for arbitration. The court below dismissed the said applications on the ground that though the petitioner is insisting to refer the matter for arbitration, but the respondent is not accepting the same and therefore it is not open for the court to formulate the terms of settlement to refer the matter for arbitration in the absence of any agreement on the part of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order of the court below is contrary to Section 89 C.P.C and liable to be set aside. We have perused Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 89 (1) of the Code, where it appears to the Court that there exists elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation. Under sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Code where a dispute has been referred for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, the deed of partnership contains a clause for reference of disputes to be settled by an arbitrator. In the instant case, the respondent filed the suit. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to get the matter referred for arbitration for filing an application under Section 8(2) of the Act before submitting his written statement. But, unfortunately, in the instant case the petitioner has filed written statement and therefore under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, he cannot seek to refer the matter for arbitration as he has already filed written statement. So far as Section 89 C.P.C., is concerned, we are of the opinion that where it appears to the Court that there exists elements of a settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court is also entitled to settle the dispute by itself and record the settlement under Section 89(1) (c) or refer the same to the Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the court below has rightly observed that in the absence of any acceptance of either side, it is not open for the court to refer the matter for arbitration. We do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the orders impugned. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 2.9.2010 kpr