Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.47 of 2004 in O.S.No.283 of 2003. Revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of money. The plaintiff in the plaint contended that it is a member of National Stock Exchange, Cochin Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange and the defendant was a client of the plaintiff and in the transaction, the plaint claim is due from the defendant. 2. The defendant filed a written statement. Subsequently, the court framed issues on 15.12.2003 and the plaintiff paid the balance court fee on 3.1.2004. The suit was listed for trial on 28.10.2004. It was at this stage that I.A.No.47 of 2004 was filed. In that application, it was stated by the petitioner to refer the dispute for arbitration to the authorities mentioned in the contract note. 3. The respondent filed objections to the application. The contention raised was that the conditions mentioned in Section 8 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) have not been complied with. It was further stated that as per the Byelaw, if any dispute arises, the matter should be referred to arbitration within six months from the raising of the dispute. The court held that the period was over and hence, reference to arbitration is not possible. Thus, I.A.No.47 of 2004 was dismissed on the ground that the claim has become barred as per the Byelaws of the plaintiff. It is the above order that is challenged before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the question whether the claim is barred by limitation or not is to be looked into by the arbitrator and not by the court. Once there is an arbitration clause, the matter has to be referred to arbitration subject to the conditions in Section 8 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the other two findings are not correct. 5. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the conditions for reference mentioned in Section 8 of the Act have not complied with. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the other two findings are not correct. 5. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the conditions for reference mentioned in Section 8 of the Act have not complied with. Section 8 of the Act is as follows: “A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration”. It is clearly stated that the application has to be made not later than submitting the first statement. In this case, the application was made only after the issues were raised and the balance court fee was paid and the case was included in the list for hearing. The contention that since this matter has been raised in the written statement will show that no request has been made for arbitration. On the other hand, what is raised in the written statement in paragraph 2 is as follows: “As per the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 there is a specific bar under Section 5 of the said Act barring the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction where there is an Arbitration clause. As per the Bombay Stock Exchange byelaw as well as National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. byelaw and the contract note between the plaintiff and defendant the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant has to be resolved through arbitration. Hence, the suit itself is not maintainable…” No application is made to refer the matter for arbitration. In view of the above, I am of the view that since the application for reference is belated, the application is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is not necessary for me to consider the other findings in the order. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.