IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.663 of 2007 ----------- 1. Smt. Tajeshwari Sharma, D/o Sri Kailash Singh 2. Smt. Madhuri Si9nha, W/o Sri R.P. Singh Both resident of Mohalla- Mehuli South Mandiri, Holding No. 133A, Opposite North Telegraph Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Town and District Patna. ….Plaintiffs-Petitioners. versus 1. Anil Kishore Sahay, son of late Nand Kishore Sahay 2. Smt. Anita Sahay, w/o Sri Binod Kishore Sahay 3. Smt. Mukti Sahay, w/o Sri Sharad Chandra Sinha All residents of 44-45, Adarsh Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna. --Defendant Ist set-Opposite Parties. 4. Smt. Lata Shankar Pandit 5. Miss Madhuri Mishra, D/o Sri Someshwar Mishra 6. Smt. Asha Sahay, w/o Sri A.K. Verma 7. Smt. Shashikala w/o Sri Ram Kripal Prasad 8. Smt. Kanchan Prasad, w/o Sri Vijay Kishore Prasad 9. Sri Vivek Prasad, son of not known 10. Sri N. P. Singh, son of not known 11. Smt. Nidhi Sharan w/o Sri Deepak Sharan 12. Sri Vijay Kumar Choudhary, s/o not known 13. Sri N. K. Mishra, s/o not known All residents of Flat No. 101, 102, 301, 302, 303, 304, 401, 402, 403, 404, respectively, Anand Bihar Apartment Complex, South Mandiri, P.S. Budha Colony, Town and District Patna. --Defendants 2nd set-Opposite Parties. ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Devendra Prasad Sinha, Sr. Advocate. For Opp. Parties No.1 to 3: M/s Mrigank Mauli and Vijay Mistry, Advocates. For Opp. Parties No. 4&11: M/s J.S. Arora and Ajay Kumar `Ajay’, Advocates. For Opp. Pa;rty no.9 : Mr. Vivek Prasad ( in person) ------- 03/ 15.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for opposite parties no.4 and 11 as well as opposite party no.9 in person. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- 2 petitioners challenging order dated 24.02.2007, by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Patna allowed the application of defendants 1st party-opposite parties 1st set in Title Suit No. 439 of 2004 referring the dispute for arbitration. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners for declaration of their title over the suit building and also for declaration that the defendants have no concern with the same as well as for holding that sale of different flats to different persons were illegal as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. Admittedly the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land and defendants 1st set were the developers and defendants 2nd set were the allottees of various flats in the building, which were constructed in terms of the agreement dated 05.03.1997 between the plaintiffs and defendants 1st set as per the terms of the sanctioned plan. 5. However, the claim of learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners is that as per Clause 14 of the said agreement dated 05.03.1997 they have become the owners of the property and the said agreement has lapsed and hence Clause 48 of the said agreement cannot be used for referring the said matter to the Arbitrator. 6. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has already decided in case of N. Srinivasa vrs. Kuttukaran Machine Tools Ltd., reported in (2009) 5 S.C.C. 182 that even after lapse of agreement, the agreement 3 clause would survive. He submits that in the said circumstances the learned court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order referring the matter for arbitration. 7. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.4 and 11 places reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2881, in which it has been held that in cases where there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, it is obligatory for the Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided in the original action after such an application is made except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. He also refers to section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with regard to the competence of the Tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction or to decide the validity and existence of the agreement if any objection is raised by any of the parties. He also submits that the date of agreement is not 05.03.1997 rather it is 05.06.1997. 8. Opposite Party no.9, who is appearing in person, supports the arguments advanced on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and opposite parties no.4 and 11 and submits that the flats in question have already been constructed and have been transferred in favour of the alottees by registered deeds, whereafter they are in peaceful possession of the said flats. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the said contentions and submits that the building has not yet been 4 completed entirely and the question of sanction of map is also in dispute. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the learned court below, after considering the entire matter in detail as well as the provision of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the settled principles of law has rightly allowed the application of defendants 1st set referring the dispute for arbitration. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)