L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral);— CM No. 29082.CII of 2012 Dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for by counsel for the applicant/petitioner. CR No. 8077 of 2011 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiffs have assailed order dated 18.4.2011, Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/2 moved by the defendants under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act) and thereby rejecting the plaint Annexure P/5 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC). Petitioners have filed suit against respondents vide plaint Annexure P/5. Defendants moved application Annexure P/2 under section 8 of the Act alleging that dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to Arbitrator in view of arbitration clause contained in memorandum of family settlement Annexure P/4. Defendants accordingly prayed that the dispute be referred to arbitration by directing the parties to initiate appointment of Arbitrator. Plaintiffs by filing reply Annexure P/3 opposed the application. However, memorandum of family settlement Annexure P/4 was not denied. Learned trial court vide impugned order, instead of referring the dispute to the Arbitrator as per mandate of section 8 of the Act, rejected the plaint itself by invoking provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this revision petition to challenge the said order of the trial court. Notice of motion in the revision petition was issued on submission of counsel for the petitioners that instead of rejection of plaint, the dispute is required to be referred to Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Impugned order of the trial court, in so far as the plaint stands rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. There was no ground to reject the plaint. Even defendants in their application Annexure P/2, which was disposed of by the trial court vide impugned order, did not pray for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. On the contrary, prayer of defendants in their application Annexure P/2 was for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator and for directing the parties to initiate appointment of the Arbitrator. On the contrary, prayer of defendants in their application Annexure P/2 was for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator and for directing the parties to initiate appointment of the Arbitrator. Section 8 of the Act also stipulates that where an action is brought before any judicial authority in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, the judicial authority shall refer the parties to arbitration. Consequently, in view of arbitration clause contained in family settlement Annexure P/4, the dispute was required to be referred to Arbitrator instead of the rejecting the plaint. Counsel for the respondents/defendants also has no objection to reference of the dispute to Arbitrator. Before concluding, it has to be observed that no Arbitrator has been named in the arbitration clause contained in family settlement Annexure P/4. Counsel for the parties submit that the Arbitrator may be appointed by this Court with consent of the parties. However, in my considered opinion, it would be appropriate if the Arbitrator is appointed by the trial court itself in terms of section 8 of the Act. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court is modified. Trial court is directed to refer the dispute to Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in family settlement Annexure P/4 as required by section 8 of the Act. The trial court shall appoint Arbitrator after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 23.12.2012. The trial court shall do the needful as expeditiously as possible.