THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.R.P.No.2252 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Heard both the counsel. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.92 of 2008 filed by the respondents herein on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner, his family members, agents, servants, etc., in any way interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. On receipt of notice, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.221 of 2008 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) to reject the plaint directing the plaintiffs-respondents to take recourse to the arbitration on the ground that the plaintiffs in the suit entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of A.V.K.V.Constructions, Hanamkonda, represented by its Managing partner D.Laxminarasaiah, the petitioner herein. According to clause 12 (k) of the development agreement, in case of dispute or differences arising between the parties under the said agreement or relating to the terms therein, the matter shall be resolved by referring the matter to Arbitration. The said application in I.A.No.221 of 2008 was dismissed by order, dated 17-04-2009, on the ground that the plaint can be rejected under Order 8 Rule 11 CPC before numbering the suit and not after numbering the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. This court while admitting the Civil Revision Petition on 28-05-2009, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2008. It is stated that the petitioner filed arbitration application No.25 of 10 under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Act before this Court and this Court allowed the said application by order, dated 30-07-2010 appointing a retired Judge as an arbitrator. Thus, the petitioner submits that in view of appointment of an arbitrator, the cause in the suit does not survive as the dispute to be resolved in the suit and the dispute to be resolved by the arbitrator in an arbitration proceedings is one and the same. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs would not survive in view of Section 8 of the Act. It is further stated that under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Therefore, it is stated that the court below ought to have considered the said application. The questions as to whether the suit is maintainable against the Managing Director in his individual capacity, the Managing Director is acting on behalf of the partnership firm and the dispute raised in the suit arises out of the agreement or not, are the matters to be considered by the Court below. But, however, on an application filed by the defendant, an arbitrator is appointed vide order, dated 30-07-2010, in arbitration application No.25 of 10. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the court below to consider afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted to the court below to consider afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 17-08-2010 Prv