IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 256 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.03.2011 M/s TATA Motors Finance Limited …. Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocate. For the respondent: None. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 21.5.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sarkaghat, District Mandi, on an application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, filed by the petitioner, which application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its impugned order. 2. The respondent was served and is not present. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there was an arbitration clause, which fact has not been disputed by the respondent. The respondent has also not disputed the fact that he had taken the loan. The only ground taken by the learned trial Court in 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 rejecting the application was that the suit is for simplicitor injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendant. It is clear from the perusal of the arbitration clause referred to by the learned trial Court that the dispute of this nature arising out of loan transaction has to be referred to the Arbitrator and the present suit filed by the respondent was nothing but an attempt to avoid the arbitration clause. The arbitration clause was rightly invoked by the petitioner in view of the dispute in regard to the payment and no suit of the nature lies restraining the petitioner from claiming the possession of the vehicle in question. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and the learned trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. A copy of the judgment alongwith record, if any, be sent to the learned trial Court. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Interim order shall also stand vacated. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 21, 2011 Judge (BSS) 3 4