- (1.) Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B. K. Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party. Delay in moving the revision is condoned.
(2.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 20.5.2016 whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in SCC Suit No. 000187 of 2014 has been rejected on the ground that the revisionist has not shown due diligence in bringing on record the plea sought to be raised in the application, and it was found that allowing such a plea to be incorporated in the written statement at a stage when the suit proceedings had progressed to the stage of evidence which was about to close would defeat the expediency of proceedings.
(3.) Before entering into other grounds of challenge against the impugned order passed on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it is desirable to answer whether such a plea in the teeth of Section-8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 was at all open to be raised. A question to this effect has cropped up. The reason being that the lease deed postulates an arbitration clause and the plea of arbitration clause being available was not taken before filing of the written statement in order to stop suit proceedings to progress before the court below under the provisions of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. Now at an advanced stage when proceedings have reached the stage of evidence, it is questionable whether raising of such a plea is permissible under law.;