ORDER The plaintiff/Revision Petitioner is a Fishermen Co-operative Society registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. O.S.No.60 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the fishing rights of the plaintiff society and its members in respect of the suit schedule tank. 2. The 1st defendant/respondent herein which is also a society, filed I.A.No.97 of 2007 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying the Court to refer the parties to arbitration on the basis of an agreement dated 29-3-2007 claiming that under the said agreement both the parties agreed to resolve the disputes by arbitration. 3. The plaintiff society opposed I.A.No.97 of 2007 denying the plea that there was an agreement between the parties to resolve the disputes by arbitration. It was also pleaded that the document dated 29-3-2007 relied upon by the defendant which did not contain any signature on behalf of the plaintiff society was a fabricated document. 4. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 21-6-2007 allowed I.A.No.97 of 2007 and referred the parties to the arbitration. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the agreement set up by the defendant itself is in dispute, the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable and on that ground alone I.A.No.97 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in SUKANYA HOLDINDGS (P) LTD. v. JAYESH H. PANDYA1. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in FCI v. INDIAN COUNCIL OF ARBITRATION2 and HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. v. PINKCITY MIDWAY PETROLEUMS3 submitted that since the allegation that the agreement is forged is a question to be decided by the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act, the Court below rightly referred the parties to the arbitration. 7. LTD. v. PINKCITY MIDWAY PETROLEUMS3 submitted that since the allegation that the agreement is forged is a question to be decided by the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act, the Court below rightly referred the parties to the arbitration. 7. Sections 8 & 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent they are necessary for the purpose of the controversy involved in the present case, may be extracted hereunder : 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement :-- (1) 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. (2)The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made. 16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction:-- (1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including a ruling on any objections with respect to the existence of validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose,-- (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the order terms of the contract; and (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause. (2) ... ... ... ... .... (3) .... ... ..... ..... ... (4) .... ... ..... ..... ... (5) .... ... ..... ..... ... (6) .... ... ..... ..... ... 8. As could be seen, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on an application made by a party, the judicial authority is bound to refer the parties to arbitration if it is found that the matter is the subject of an arbitration agreement, provided such application is made before submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute. 9. 9. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that I.A.No.97 of 2007 was made by the defendant at the first instance even before submitting its statement on merits. However, the plaintiff opposed the application on the ground that the agreement dated 29-3-2007 was not signed by any person representing the plaintiff society. 10. The Court below, on a perusal of the said document, found that one Kesari Prabhakar signed the agreement on behalf of the plaintiff society apart from some other members of the society. The Court below also observed that neither the fact that the said Prabhakar was the President of the Society nor his signature on the document was disputed, it was only contended by the plaintiff society that the said Prabhakar signed in his individual capacity but not as the President of the society. 11. On a careful reading of the pleadings before the trial Court as well as this Court and after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, it is clear that the objection raised by the plaintiff society is not with regard to the existence of the agreement dated 29-3-2007 as such. As rightly observed by the Court below, it was not the case of the plaintiff Society that K. Prabhakar, whose signature was appended on the agreement was not the President of the Plaintiff society. It was also not their case that his signature was forged. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff society was represented by its President Kesari Prabhakar in the main suit and the plaint was signed by him representing the society. Whether such agreement is binding on the society or not is a question which can be agitated before the arbitral tribunal as provided under Section 16 of the Act and it is not necessary for the judicial authority to record any finding thereon in an application under Section 8 of the Act. 12. Hence, the Court below was justified in holding that there was am agreement for arbitration between the parties and accordingly referring the parties to the arbitration. 13. The Civil Revision Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs.