HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5879 OF 2006 Date:08-07-2010 Between: M/s.Raj Consultants Private Limited. …. Petitioner AND Bharath Sanchara Nigam Limited (BSNL) …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5879 OF 2006 ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant, who filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia seeking to assail the order dated 26-09-2006 in I.A. No.447 of 2006 in O.S No.1924 of 2004 of the learned X Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad, dismissing the application, under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the petitioner sought the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue. 2. The trial Court dismissed the impugned application observing that as per Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the petitioner shall apply for arbitration proceedings before filing his written statement in the suit. Challenging the same this revision is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent has not served any bills or notice on the petitioner with regard to the amount claimed by it before filing the suit and that he has taken this plea in his written statement. He further contends that the claim raised by the respondent is not based on genuine bills, as such, the dispute between the parties shall be determined by an Arbitrator as contemplated under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner has taken a specific plea in his written statement to the effect that the bills or notice, which are the basis for filing of the suit, were never served on him, and therefore, the action of straightaway initiating the suit proceedings for recovery of the amount in dispute is misconceived. However, the trial Court has not considered all these aspects. Further, having regard to the remedy available under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act for the aforesaid dispute, the order passed by the by trial Court is perverse, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and I.A. No. 447 of 2006 in O.S No.1924 of 2004 is allowed, remitting the matter back to the trial Court to take up the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and decide the same on merits. 7. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J July 08, 2010 KTL