: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2009 M/s.Castle Enterprises & Ors. ... Applicants V/s. Arjun Mangal Wayale & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Rajesh Datar for Applicants Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 19 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 14, 2010 P.C.: 1. The application has been filed against the order passed by the trial Court concluding that it has jurisdiction to hear the matter despite the agreement dated 8.8.2003 between the plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 to 4. 2. The trial Court has concluded that clause 25 of the agreement which defendant Nos.1 to 4 claim is a clause of arbitration cannot be interpreted in the manner sought by defendant Nos.1 to 4. According to the trial Court, clause 25 indicates that only if there are doubts about the clauses in the arbitration agreement that an arbitrator should be appointed. 3. Mr.Dhakephalkar appearing for the respondents herein does not support the : 2 : judgment in its interpretation of clause 25. However, he submits that since defendant Nos.5 to 8 are not parties to the arbitration agreement, the suit is maintainable. 4. The trial Court has not applied its mind to this aspect. Therefore in my opinion, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the trial Court to consider the issue as to whether the suit would lie in view of the fact that there is a clause for arbitration in the agreement dated 8.8.2003 and the arbitration agreement has been signed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and not defendant Nos.5 to 8. 5. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the trial Court. The trial court will decide the issue within four weeks from today. Any application for interim relief which may be pending can also be decided. 6. Civil revision application is disposed of accordingly.