SUNITA AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Midha, learned counsels for the respondents.
(2.) At the outset Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The short question of law involving the availability of remedy of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the C.P.C.) vis-a-vis constitutional remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is being raised by way of preliminary objection. Since the answer to the question does not involve any factual adjudication, the Court does not make any reference to the factual controversy. Suffice it to note that the petitioner is assailing the order passed by the District Judge, Bareilly whereby the application under section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the 1996, Act') has been rejected on the ground that during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the civil court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the said application in view of the nature of objections raised therein.
(3.) Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate placing the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jupiter Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. v. Dwarka Dhiesh Dayal and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 Allahabad 218 , submits that the order impugned is revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. In view of the available statutory remedy, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would not be maintainable. The present petition, therefore, deserves dismissal, outrightly.;