Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010050752023 2025:GAU-AS:5443 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/69/2023 SAI CONSTRUCTIONS AND ANR. A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 47 GUHA COMPLEX ULUBARI G S ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM REP. BY ITS PROPRETOR NAMELY GAUTAM BASU S/O LT. SUNIL KUMAR BASU R/O BORTHAKUR MILL ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN 781008 2: GAUTAM BASU S/O LT. SUNIL KUMAR BASU R/O BORTHAKUR MILL ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN 78100 VERSUS KALPANA DEY AND ANR W/O DWIJENDRA KUMAR DEY R/O HOUSE NO. 1 ODALBAKRA LINK ROAD LALGANESH GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN 781034 2:NISHA PAUL W/O LT. ATAL CHANDRA PAUL R/O ODALBAKRA LALGANESH GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN 78103 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. D Choudhury Advocate for the respondent(s): None appears B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Page No.# 2/4 02.05.2025 Heard Mr. D Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents on call. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the order dated 02.02.2023 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.37/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.45/2020 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.1 Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. 3. It is seen that pursuant to the suit being filed by the respondents herein as plaintiffs, which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.45/2020, the petitioner herein who are the defendants filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court has duly taken note of that vide the impugned order, the said application has been rejected merely on the ground that in Clause 16 of the agreement, there was a mention of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 and not 1996. This Court had duly taken note of Clause 16 of the agreement which is reproduced hereinunder: “16. Any dispute or difference which may arise between the parties or their representatives, with regard to the construction, delivery etc. with respect to the flat (Schedule — ‘B’) or any part thereof, shall be referred to arbitration and the decision of a sole arbitration, if the parties in dispute so agree, otherwise to two or more arbitrators, to be nominated by each party or his representative and in case of deference of opinion between them by the umpire selected by them at the commencement of the reference and Page No.# 3/4 this clause shall be deemed to be a submission within the meaning of the Arbitration Act 1940, including its statutory modification and re-enactment.” 4. From a perusal of the above quoted clause, it would be seen that the Arbitration was to be held in terms with the Arbitration Act, 1940, including its statutory modification and re-enactment. The said expression used “including its statutory modification and re-enactment” would include the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 5. Taking into account that the impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind, this Court interferes with the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 passed in Misc(J). Case No.37/2023. It is further relevant to take note of that as the learned Trial Court did not consider the said application in accordance with law and the learned Trial Court is a judicial authority as mentioned in Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is the opinion of this Court that this Court is required to remand for consideration of the application being Misc.(J)Case No.37/2023 to the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati for a fresh decision on the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court accordingly, restores, the Misc.(J).Case No.37/2023 to the file of the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.1 Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No.45/2020. 6. This Court further takes note of that vide an order dated 15.03.2023 the further proceedings of Title Suit No.45/202 had been stayed. The said order Page No.# 4/4 stands vacated and the petitioner herein, who is the defendant in the suit who is duly represented before this Court today is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 12.06.2025. The learned Trial Court before deciding the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall issue notice to the plaintiff and decide the Misc.(J).Case No.37/2023 in accordance with law. 7. This revision application, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant