IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.1747 OF 1993 The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ...Plaintiffs Versus Mrs.Neeta Nitin Shah & Anr. ...Defendants ...... Ms.Jyoti Thakkar for Plaintiffs. None for Defendants. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 30, 2008. JANUARY 30, 2008. JANUARY 30, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs for recovery of amount due and payable by the Defendants under eight different telephone bills in relation to telephone No.863689. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant No.1 is the original subscriber of telephone No.863689, upon whose request the telephone was shifted to the premises of Defendant No.2 who was using the telephone services with STD facility. : 2 : 2. The Defendants have filed written statement and have maintained their stand by disputing the claim of the Plaitniffs being excessive one. In that sense, dispute has been raised with regard to the correctness of the amount claimed under the suit bills, which dispute is squarely covered by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act. In such a case, reference of dispute to arbitration under Section 7B of the Act is imperative. 3. Ordinarily if there is dispute regarding demand bill pertaining to telephone, it should be matter for arbitration within the meaning of Section 7B of the Act. However, in the present case, it is noticed that Defendant No.2 is not the subscriber of the telephone. Just because Defendant No.2 is the user of the telephone which is the case of the Plaintiffs, that cannot be the basis to refer the parties to arbitration. The arbitration could have been possible only if the dispute was between the telephone company and the subscriber inter se and not third party user. In : 3 : that situation, the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Sukanya Holdings Pvt.Ltd. v. Jayesh Sukanya Holdings Pvt.Ltd. v. Jayesh Sukanya Holdings Pvt.Ltd. v. Jayesh H.Pandya & Anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2252 H.Pandya & Anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2252 H.Pandya & Anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2252 would be attracted. 4. In the circumstances, the matter cannot be referred for arbitration so long as Defendant No.2 is party to the proceedings. Counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that if the hearing of this Suit is deferred, she would take instructions from the Department as to whether the Department is interested in continuing Defendant No.2 as party to the present Suit. 5. To enable the Advocate to take instructions, stand over to 28th February 2008. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.