1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.646 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.811 OF 2009 Mr. Mohammed Zahid Shaikh. ..Appellants. Vs. M/s.G.E.Capital Transportation Finanacial Services Ltd. ..Respondents. Mr. Chourasiya i/by A.M.Sarogi for the Appellants. Mr. Hemant Prabhavalkar i/by Juris Consultants for the Respondents. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 10th Sept.2009. PC: 1 This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff impugning an order dated 4.4.2009 passed by the City Civil Court below Exhibit -7 in S. C. Suit No.2617 of 2008. The plaintiff had filed a suit in the city civil court for various reliefs arising out of an agreement entered into with the defendants and both the agreements contained an arbitration clause. In the said suit, a Notice of 2 motion seeking reliefs under section 8 of the Arbitration & Consiliation Act, 1996 was filed by the defendants and they prayed that the dispute in the suit be referred to an Arbitrator for adjudication. In the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, copies of the two agreements were annexed. In his reply to the notice of motion, the plaintiff did not specifically deny the execution of the two agreements in question. He raised the other issues such as their contents were not disclosed to him when the agreements were signed, that there was no signature on all the pages and that copies of the agreements were not given to him. 2 After hearing both the sides, the trial court returned the plaint under Order- 7 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. with an observation that the dispute required to be referred to an Arbitrator. The court has also observed that the parties were at liberty to raise all objections before the Arbitration Tribunal and all points were kept open. On behalf 3 of the appellant/plaintiff, it is sought to be contended that the proper procedure as prescribed by Order 9 Rule 2 was not followed as the original agreements or certified copies thereof were not annexed to the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. On perusal of the judgment of the trial court, I find that, in fact, the original copies of the agreements were produced before the trial court and they were compared and tallied with the zerox copies which were annexed to the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, by the trial court. Section 8(1) is procedural in nature and cannot be read in the manner which will defeat the purpose of Section-8. In the present case, the word accompany does not mean annex . The original agreement or a certified copy can be shown separately to the court. In this view of the matter, this submission has no substance. It is also sought to be argued that by the impugned order the trial court did not refer the dispute for arbitration but passed the order under Order 7 Rule 4 10 of the C.P.C. On reading the order, it is clear that though there is no express order referring the dispute for arbitration what has been does by the trial court is that the plaint has been returned for the purpose of referring the dispute before the Arbitrator. The trial court has also observed that the matter needs to be referred for arbitration. The purport and intent for returning the plaint is clearly referred to in the impugned judgment and this is to enable the parties to approach the arbitrator. It is clear that once the court refers the dispute for arbitration, the court can return the plaint. There is no error in the impugned order. Hence, appeal is summarily rejected. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)