- (1.) Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Sahai for the respondents.
(2.) In a dispute with regard to a common passage, which is contained in the plaint map, the Suit is sought to be resisted by the defendants on the ground that this dispute ought to have been referred to the arbitrator as per clause-4 of the Deed dated 1.3.2000 read with clause-7 of the Deed dated 21.3.1997. The defendants, who are the petitioners before this Court, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., which was rejected by the trial court and affirmed in revision that has given rise to this writ petition.
(3.) Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel has extensively taken the court through the plaint allegations and the plaint map coupled with the two Deeds referred to herein above and he submits that in view of this specific arbitration clause, the trial court has committed a manifest error by rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 and a material irregularity has been committed by the revisional court by affirming the same. Hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Suit should be dismissed keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of arbitration in the deeds referred to herein above.;