- (1.) This revision petition directed against the order dated 1 Oth February, 2003 passed by the learned trial Court has been submitted by the defendant -petitioners with the submissions, inter alia, that the plaintiff-non-petitioner has put his Bus bearing registration No. RJ 19 P 2634 with the petitioners for a period of one year under a contract executed between the parties. The plaintiff-non-petitioner has filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 17,000/- in the civil Court against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application before the learned trial Court to the effect that as the contract executed between the parties contains an arbitration clause, therefore, the Against Order of Purnima Gaur, Addl. Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) No. 7, Jodhpur, Dt. 10-2-2003. suit was not maintainable and a prayer for appointment of arbitrator was made. The plaintiff non petitioner did not file reply to the said application but agreed for reference of the dispute to the arbitrator, however, with the prayer that till the adjudication of the dispute by the arbitrator the proceedings in the suit may be stayed, The learned Additional Civil Judge has rejected this application by the impugned order dated 10th February, 2003 on the sole ground that the Court was not having jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1996'). The petitioners have challenged this order in the present revision petition.
(2.) Nobody has put in appearance for the plaintiff non petitioner despite service.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial Court has acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction while dealing with the application before it and has also refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.;