THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4521 of 2009 Dated:20.11.2009 Between: Sri Satyasai Builders, And others. ….Petitioners And Smt.V.Krishna Kumari. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4521 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.209 of 1999. The suit was filed by the respondents based on an unregistered partnership deed for injunction. Petitioners then filed I.A.No.1417 of 1999 for stay of the suit on the ground that the dispute is arbitral. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, Civil Revision Petition No.9 of 2006 was filed, and this Court allowed the same on 03.07.2006 and remitted the matter to the lower Court for fresh consideration. In obedience thereto, by impugned order dated 04.03.2008 the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, again dismissed the application. This is now again put in issue in the present Civil Revision Petition. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. With his assistance this Court has gone through Sections 8 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for brevity), and is of considered opinion that no error apparent on the face of the record vitiates the impugned order. The brief reasons for the same are as below. The petitioner initially filed application under Section 34 of the Act to stay the suit on the ground that the registered partnership provides for arbitration. The trial Court refused to stay the proceedings. When this Court again allowed the Civil Revision Petition and remitted the matter, the petitioners had time to produce all the material to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 8 of the Act. They also did not take any further steps to amend the prayer in I.A.No.1417 of 1999. The same remained as an interlocutory application for stay of the suit. Therefore, the Court having considered the matter came to the conclusion that in the absence of original agreement an arbitrator cannot be appointed. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners based on the decision in ITC Classic Finance Limited v Grapco Mining and Company Limited[1] that there can be exercise of power under Section 8 of the Act even based on Xerox copy of the agreement appears to be not sound. We are not able to persuade ourselves to follow the said judgment because a plain reading of Section 8(2) of the Act says that any application under Section 8(1) of the Act shall have to be accompanied by original agreement. When the Parliament chose to use the words “original agreement” the same cannot be substituted by “a Xerox copy thereof”. That would amount to a decision rendering per incuriam. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 20.11.2009 vs [1] AIR 1997 CALCUTTA 397