THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1121 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard both the sides. The petitioners, who are the defendants in the Court below, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 29.09.2007 in I.A.No.120 of 2007 in O.S.No.279 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, in rejecting the said application filed under Sections 8 and 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 {“the Act” for brevity}, for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The facts, in brief, which are not in dispute, are that having regard to the nature of the transaction between the petitioners and the respondent, alleging breach on the part of the petitioners, the respondent herein filed the suit, inter alia, seeking for a declaration in regard to the vehicle and for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,046/- towards the value of the vehicle and also a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages etc. Before filing any written statement, the present application has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that having regard to clause 23 of the loan agreement between the parties, that all disputes, differences of claims arising out of agreement, whether during its subsistence or thereafter, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. By taking into consideration the principles laid down by this Court and also the Apex Court, the Court below proceeded to consider the said application on the ground that wherever there is arbitrary clause, it has to be given effect to. However, since the third defendant is not impleaded now is not a party to the agreement nor impleaded in this application, the present revision is filed. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, though it is quite apparent that both the sides are canvassing the question in a very wider aspect, however, the fact remains that in spite of the fact that such inter se relationship whatsoever between the parties including the third defendant, who has been admittedly added as a party to the suit, the petitioners avoided to implead him in this application. Absolutely, there is no ground as to why the said person could not be impleaded. In the nature of the events and the dispute arising between the parties, it is better to consider the present application rather than to reject the same. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 29.11.2007 in I.A.No.120 of 2007 is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Court below and the Court below is directed to dispose of the same afresh on merits in accordance with law after impleading the third defendant as party to the present application. The petitioners are at liberty to implead the third respondent in the application and take all such appropriate steps in this regard. The Court below shall dispose of the application within a period of two {2} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 8th July 2010 RRB