R. K. MAHAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit in the lower Court, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer to set aside judgment and order dated 21-11-1997 passed in Civil Revision No. 20 of 1997 (arising out of suit No. 1044 of 1995) by the District Judge, Ghaziabad and the order dated 11th Sept. 1996 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, Prayer has also been made for staying the suit i. e. suit No. 1044 of 1995 in terms of Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act. 1961. ( 2 ) THE record of the petition is voluminous but the point is short. There is famous saying that "if there is a right, there is remedy. "the District Judge has held that no revision petition is maintainable out of the order passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad and the declined to stay the proceeding of the suit in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration agreement entered into between the parties long before the suit has been filed. The learned District Judge was of the view that the Arbitration Act of 1940 was repealed by Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) appeal shall lie from the order of the Court refusing to refer the parties to arbitration. He was further of the view that under the Arbitration Act. 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1940 under Section 40 there was no provision for revision but of an appeal and since the appeal has not been filed so revision does not life. He was also of the view that under the Act of 1996 as referred there is provision of appeal and since revision has been filed so revision is not maintainable. The reasoning seemed to be plausible but if we go into depth they lose its plausibility and they appear to lack force. It appears that the District Judge has missed by over sight cardinal principle of law which would be discussed hereinafter. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY to understand this controversy this court would not touch the merits and demerits o the case. It appears that plaintiffs-respondent filed a suit against the petitioner-defendants. It appears that the District Judge has missed by over sight cardinal principle of law which would be discussed hereinafter. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY to understand this controversy this court would not touch the merits and demerits o the case. It appears that plaintiffs-respondent filed a suit against the petitioner-defendants. The petitioners are Foreign Companies based in Germany and dealing in manufacture and marketing of medical equipments particularly Dailysers and Blood Tobing System. Agreement dated 4. 11. 1987 was entered into between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 and thereafter on 8. 7. 1988 the respondent No. 1 was granted approval by the Government of India for setting up a new industrial undertaking for manufacture of the aforesaid items in N. E. F. Z. Noida, District Ghaziabad. It is alleged that the respondents filed suit stating therein that the manufactured product of its factory was exclusively for export and could not be marketed in India. It appears from the allegation that the technical know how agreement dated 21. 9. 1988 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 and a sale promotion agreement dated 27. 4. 1989 was also entered. There are so many agreements which need no reference for the purpose of decision. It is alleged that in pursuance of these agreements respondent No. 1 and 2 plaintiffs performed their part by investing crores of rupees and other contribution as mentioned in the plaint. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner violated the technical know how agreement and sale promotion agreement. The plaintiff-respondents later on came to know that the petitioner-defendant had entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 3. Hence suit no. 1044 of 1995 was filed calling the respondents-petitioners to pay damages. It may be mentioned that relief against the respondent was also claimed. In other words the plea of the plaintiff-respondent is that it had exclusive right regarding know how etc. and it could not be transferred or imparted to any other party. It may be mentioned here that the respondent No. 3 is not a party to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 3 contested the suit and filed written statement on 9-11-1995. and it could not be transferred or imparted to any other party. It may be mentioned here that the respondent No. 3 is not a party to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 3 contested the suit and filed written statement on 9-11-1995. ( 4 ) IT appears that after written statement has been filed by the respondent No. 3 the petitioners-defendants had moved an application in the suit purporting to be under Section 3 of the Central Act No. 45 of 1961 for staying of the suit. This Act is called Act No. 45 of 1961 relating to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards. The lower Court has found that there is no sufficient basis to refer the matter to the Arbitrator as per the condition of the agreement and dismissed the application of defendant No. 1,2 and 3 vide document No. 32-C, 35-C and 37-C respectively under Section 3 of Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 45 of 1961 ). The District Judge has referred above also found that no revision is maintainable. ( 5 ) SHRI P. V. Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sharad Verma appeared for the petitioners and Shri L. P. Naithani, Senior Advocate appeared for the respondents. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at two different hearings and gave a long hearing. Learned Counsel for the petitioners requested that this court should give a finding on the application filed under Section 3 of Act No. 45 of 1961. He further submitted that remedy whatever was available under Act No. 45 of 1961 has been saved under the Act of 1996 read with General Clauses Act. ( 7 ) SHRI Naithani has submitted that there is no award under the Act No. 45 of 1961 and also arbitration proceedings have not been started under the Act of 1996 and he practically read relevant provisions of Arbitration Act. So the controversy is that the proceedings were not referred to arbitration by the lower Court and the District Judge on preliminary objection ruled that the Revision is not maintainable. So the controversy is that the proceedings were not referred to arbitration by the lower Court and the District Judge on preliminary objection ruled that the Revision is not maintainable. ( 8 ) I am of the considered view that revision is maintainable and this Court would not while exercising powers under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India like to give a finding about the applicability of Act of 1961 or make any observation on Act of 1996. There is hierarchy of forums provided under statute and it is settled law by Apex Court that one has to exhaust remedy provided under the statute and hierarchy of the court or forums provided under the Act. It is also settled principle of law while interpreting pleadings in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit of injunction and there is application of stay of proceeding in suit under Act of 1940 y the petitioner and they wanted stay of the suit in view of that arbitration clause in the argument. The plea was repelled and the respondent filed a revision. It may be remembered that the order arises out of the application filed in suit rejecting the stay. The remedy is either by way of appeal or revision. Appeal does not lie under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. and then only the course left for the petitioner is revision. In Uttar Pradesh State there is local Amendment under Section 115, C. P. C. and the same is quoted with an advantage :-"115. The remedy is either by way of appeal or revision. Appeal does not lie under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. and then only the course left for the petitioner is revision. In Uttar Pradesh State there is local Amendment under Section 115, C. P. C. and the same is quoted with an advantage :-"115. Revision - The High Court, in cases arising out or original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, including such suits or other proceedings, instituted before 1/08/1978, and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, any call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it bylaw; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity;the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 9 ) THE petitioner left aggrieved from the order of the Civil Judge and no appeal is provided and only course left it revision and the District Judge should not have disposed the matter by saying that revision is not maintainable. Perhaps it escaped from his mind that he is sitting on the order passed in suit and not an order passed under Arbitration Act or Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act. The District Judge committed a jurisdictional error which resulted into failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested and ultimately failure of justice. ( 10 ) SO in my view of the impugned order dated 21-1-1997 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in Civil Revision No. 20 of 1997 is quashed. The District Judge is to hear the revision and decide expeditiously. The legal pleas raised before me can be raised before the District Judge, Ghaziabad. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid observation the writ petition, is allowed. The District Judge is to hear the revision and decide expeditiously. The legal pleas raised before me can be raised before the District Judge, Ghaziabad. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid observation the writ petition, is allowed. The parties are directed to be present on 28th July before District Judge. Petition allowed. .