P. N. Nag, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the orderdated 23. 3. 1990 passed by Shri A. S. Dateer, Sub-Judge, Delhi whereby hehas framed the following issue : "1. Whether any bonafide dispute exists between the parties ?if so, to what effect ?"against the framing of such an issue, the revision petition has been filed. ( 2 ) MR. Thadani, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that this issue does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties andparticularly the learned trial Court cannot frame the issue in such a way. ( 3 ) I am afraid I am not able to appreciate the contention of thelearned Counsel for the petitioner. Nothing has been shown by Mr. Thadaniand in fact no pleadings have been shown to me to enable the Court toappreciate that this issue does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties. ( 4 ) FROM the impugned order I find that there is an arbitrationclause No. 26 in the Agreement entered into between the petitioner and thedesu and the present dispute is covered under that clause. According toagreed arbitration Clause No. 26, the matter can be referred to the arbitrator. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, for referring the matter to the arbitrator there should bedispute between the parties. Mr. Thadani, however, states that the learnedtrial Court could not frame the issue whether any bonafide dispute exists between the parties ? Much emphasis has been laid down by him on the word"bonafide". According to him, the learned trial Court cannot frame theissue in this way, as according to him, the matter can be referred to if thereis a dispute and the dispute need not be bonafide. ( 6 ) SUCH a contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner alsocannot be accepted. In order to determine whether the matter is referable toarbitrator, the Court has primafacie to come to a conclusion that there doesexist a dispute and that the same is not frivolous. Frivolous disputesobviously cannot be referred to arbitrator. Therefore, in that context, if thelearned trial Court has couched the issue in the fashion as has been done inthe present case whether any bonafide dispute exists between the parties , inmy opinion, the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error. ( 7 ) I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, in that context, if thelearned trial Court has couched the issue in the fashion as has been done inthe present case whether any bonafide dispute exists between the parties , inmy opinion, the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error. ( 7 ) I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. ( 8 ) PETITION is dismissed with no order as to costs.