ORDER 1. This is a writ under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed by the plaintiff, against an interim order dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned VII Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 28- B of 2004. The need to file writ under has arisen, because according to petitioner he has no right of civil revision which he could have filed earlier under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code i.e. prior to amendment in the Civil Procedure Code which was brought into effect from 1.7.2002. 2. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused record of the case, I find no substance in this petition. By impugned order, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application made by the defendant under section 8 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and accordingly made a reference to the Arbitration as provided in the agreement entered into between the parties. 3. It was not disputed seriously by learned counsel appearing for petitioner (plaintiff) that a reference to Arbitration can be made in the facts of the case because of term contained in the agreement. In other words this legal and contractual position arising out of this case that defendant was able to make out the requirements of section 8 (1) of Arbitration and Condiliation Act for making reference to the Arbitration and then all the attributes for making" a reference are present in this case. His only contention was that earlier when company petition was filed by petitioner, this objection was not raised by the respondent and hence it cannot be raised in civil suit filed by the petitioner. I find no merit in this submission. 4. Once it is noticed that defendant has satisfied the conditions mentioned in section 8 of the Act in the suit filed by the plaintiff out of which this application arises, then in that event, the application so made· has got to be allowed by the Court. It is hardly of any consequence why such objection was not raised by the defendant in the earlier round of litigation filed by the petitioner under the Companies Act or not. Moreover, that company petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and hence there was no occasion for the defendant to here raise any such objection. It is hardly of any consequence why such objection was not raised by the defendant in the earlier round of litigation filed by the petitioner under the Companies Act or not. Moreover, that company petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and hence there was no occasion for the defendant to here raise any such objection. In order to find out whether a case under section 8 of the Act is made out, one has to see whether an application is made in a suit or proceedings and secondly whether there exists an agreement and thirdly whether there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and lastly whether dispute sought to be raised in the suit is covered by the agreement. Once these conditions are satisfied the matter has to be referred to arbitration in terms of agreement for adjudication. This is what has happened in this case and thus in my view the application was rightly allowed. 5. The other submission of learned counsel for petitioner was about the refund of court fees paid by the plaintiff on the plaint. I am afraid no direction with regard to refund of court fees as provided under the Court Fees Act i.e. section 13 in this case is made out while hearing the petition under Article 227. Parties may, however, agree to refund of court fees depending upon the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings. 6. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.