This revision petition arises from an order dated 18.1.88 passed by the Additional District Judge, Manipur in Original Suit No. 1 of 1986/13/86. 2. Facts giving rise to the present petition, in short, are thus. The bus bearing MNP 4878 belonging to the plaintiff-respondent-1 was requisitioned on 13.2.84 in connection with the election of Members of the District Council in Churachandpur held in the year 1984. The Deputy Commissioner, Churaclandpur assessed the compensation at Rs. 1900/- and the plaintiff received the same under objection' The plaintiff-respondent claimed further "sum of Rs. 3,795.66 by instituting the suit. 3. The question which arises for consideration is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the provision of sections 160 to 167 of the Representation of People Act, 1931, for short the "Act", are applicable mutatis mutandis to the election of Members of the District Council, vide Rule 94 of the Manipur Autonomous District Councils (Election of Members) Rules, 1972. In view of section 160 of the Act, any vehicle "may be requisitioned, if it is needed in connection with the election of Members of the District Council. Section 161 (2) provides for determina­tion and payment of the compensation of the vehicle requisitioned in pursuance of section 160. Under proviso to section 161 (2)where an owner of a vehicle being aggrieved by the amount of compensation so determined under section 161 (2) makes an Application within the prescribed time for referring the matter to an arbitrator, the amount of compensation to be paid shall be such as the arbitrator may determine. Under Rule 99 of the Conduct of Election Rules, the prescribed limit is 14 days. Therefore, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. : 5. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: ''Courts t6 try all civil suits unless barred.-The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.” 6. It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil Court is not to be readily inferred but such exclusion must be either explicitly expressed or clearly implied. Clear implication would mean necessary intendment arising from general principle of law and equity or on grounds of public policy. 7. It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil Court is not to be readily inferred but such exclusion must be either explicitly expressed or clearly implied. Clear implication would mean necessary intendment arising from general principle of law and equity or on grounds of public policy. 7. The question then is- Whether the suit challenging the assess­ment or valuation of compensation made under section 161 (2) is barred by necessary implication by the proviso to section 161 (2)? In this case, the compensation has been determined and paid but the owner of the vehicle is aggrieved by the amount of compens­ation so determined,' Therefore, the proviso to section 161 (2) is attracted. Under the proviso, the dispute of this particular type is to be settled by an arbitrator. In 19th Edition of Russell on Arbitra­tion, it is stated at 174, "Where the statute provides the disputes of a particular type shall be settled by arbitration, the position is different: for the Court cannot try such a dispute." Apart from the above quoted passage, the nature of the right and liability dealt with by section 161(2) and the remedy provided thereunder are rele­vant for determination of jurisdiction. Therefore, where the statute provides that the disputes of a particular case would be settled by arbitration, the arbitrator is the only authority for the settlement and the jurisdiction of the civil Court is excluded by necessary implication. For these reasons, the civil Court has no jurisdiction over the dispute in question. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 18.1.88 passed by the Additional District Judge, Manipur in Original Suit No 1 of 1986/ 13/16 is set aside and suit is dismissed. The petition is allowed. No costs.