HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.918 & 921 OF 2010 DATE:05-03-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.918 OF 2010 BETWEEN Dulam Anantha Lakshmi …Petitioner AND Tammina Paramatma …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.921 OF 2010 BETWEEN Dulam Anantha Lakshmi …Petitioner AND Tammina Paramatma …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.918 & 921 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions under Article 227 of Constitution of India are filed by the defendant in O.S.Nos.6 of 2006 and 112 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram contending that in view of Clause 15 of Partnership Deed, on which basis the above suits are filed, disputes arising between the parties have to be settled through arbitration proceedings before they resort to the jurisdiction of Civil Court, and therefore, at the threshold, the Court below ought to have framed and decided the issue of jurisdiction ‘whether the suit as such can be entertained or not’ and hence, seeks a direction to the Court below to decide the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner herein filed written statements in the suits without raising any objection as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits. But, however, she has pleaded therein that in view of the arbitration clause provided in the partnership deed, the suits as such are not maintainable and pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the partnership deed, the parties have to go for arbitration and shall not file any suit and therefore, the suits filed by the plaintiff are against the terms and conditions. So, even in the written statement also, she has not pleaded that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits in view of the arbitration clause. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers power on the Court to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement, provided if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute. Then the Court can refer the parties to arbitration. Further under sub-section (2) of Section 8, the application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. Furthermore, Under Order X Rule 1A of C.P.C., the Court can issue a direction, after recording the admissions and denials in the suit, directing the parties in the suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the Court as specified in sub-section (1) of section 89, and on such option of the parties, the Court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties. In that view of the matter, the grievance ventilated by the petitioner by way of the present revisions cannot be entertained. The Revisions are accordingly dismissed, however, the petitioner is granted liberty to move the Court below for appropriate relief in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 05, 2010 Tsr.