1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2009 Shree Ravji Dhanji Shah & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Rajashree Shelters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. R. S. Apte, Sr.Counsel i/b. Mr. Ashutosh Gole for the Petitioners. Mr. G.S.Godbole with Mr. Nitin Mulye, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 21st APRIL, 2009. P.C. Heard, Mr. Apte, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Godbole, learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Revision takes exception to the order passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan dated 7th January, 2009 preferred under section 9(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The learned Judge by the impugned order rejected the Petitioners/Defendant Nos. 1 to 7's aforesaid Application. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Respondent No.1/Original Plaintiff also filed arbitration proceedings against the Petitioners under section 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 and having filed those 2 proceedings the present suit for similar relief is not maintainable. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are not party to the Arbitration proceedings. It is further submitted that the Respondent Nos.1 to 7, transferred, assigned their rights in favour of Respondent No.2/Defendant No.8. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 could not get appropriate relief against Respondent No.2/Defendant No.8 in Arbitration proceeding. It was further submitted that the Arbitrator could not exercise jurisdiction on Respondent No.2 & 3/Original Defendant No.8 and 9. 3. Firstly, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Original Defendant No.8 & 9 could not be subjected to the jurisdiction of arbitration. They are not party before Arbitrator. The Defendant No.1 to 7/the present Petitioners, have already transferred, assigned their right in favour of Respondent No.2 / Defendant No.8. In these circumstances, there is no alternative for Plaintiff but to approach Civil Court to claim reliefs against Defendant Nos.8 & 9 / Respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)