JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the 14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in the Execution No.2683/2011. 2. The Judgment debtor is the petitioner herein. The suit came to be filed by the respondents in OS No.6058/2010 against the petitioner seeking to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule property which was taken on lease by the petitioner through lease deed dated 16.02.2009 agreeing to pay monthly rental of `2,30,000/-from 01.02.2009 to 31.01.2010, thereafter with an enhanced rate of rent for the next 10 years effective upto 31.01.2019. The case of the respondents before the trial Court was that after the date of taking over the possession of the suit schedule property, the petitioner has not paid the agreed rent. Therefore, the arrears in a sum of `.59,44,200/-was existing against the petitioner/judgment debtor. When the notice of the suit was sent to the petitioner, the same was returned with a shara "intimation delivered, not claimed". Therefore, the suit was decided exparte by the Judgment dated 26.07.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the execution petition before the Execution Court in EP No.2683/2011. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that only during the first week of November 2012 they received notice from the Execution Court regarding decree passed against them. Thereafter, by an application dated 29.11.2012 filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it was brought to the notice of the Execution Court that, since the suit has been decided without referring the matter to arbitration as provided under Clause-16 of the Lease agreement, the said matter requires to be referred for Arbitration to the Sole Arbitrator. In the affidavit annexed to the said application, it is averred by the petitioner that there was no intimation issued in respect of the suit filed by the trial Court. Hence, the execution arising out of the said decree is bad in law. 4. The respondent/decree holder filed the objections to the aforesaid claim of the petitioner stating interalia that the petitioner is precluded from now urging the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and that they have not contested the suit nor filed any application for setting aside the exparte decree. 5. 4. The respondent/decree holder filed the objections to the aforesaid claim of the petitioner stating interalia that the petitioner is precluded from now urging the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and that they have not contested the suit nor filed any application for setting aside the exparte decree. 5. The Execution Court on hearing both the parties dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 6. Heard Sri. Rajendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Nataraj Ballal, learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about pending suit only after decree was passed and immediately he has brought to the notice of the Court that, there is an Arbitration Clause in the lease agreement which ought to have been given effect to and that the said provision is mandatory. It is further submitted that the execution proceedings against the petitioner need to be dismissed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings: i) (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 539 (P.Anand Gajapathi Raju & others v. P.V.G.Raju (Dead) and others) ii) (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 103 (Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and another v. Potluri Madhavilata and another) 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand filed certified copy of the cover under which the notice of the Court was sent to the petitioner and submitted that the address given in the cover is the same as found in the petition before this Court and even in the execution petition and also in the affidavit of one Soumitra Sen filed along with IA before the Execution Court. Hence, he submits that the notice which was correctly addressed is deemed to have been served on the petitioner. It is further submitted by him that, even though, it is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the exparte decree, even to this date, he has not filed an application to set aside the exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is further submitted by him that, even though, it is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the exparte decree, even to this date, he has not filed an application to set aside the exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the other hand, he is seeking from Execution Court for relief of referring the matter to the Arbitration which is not permissible in law. It is further submitted by him that, ever since the date of occupation of the premises, the petitioner has not paid the rent as agreed and therefore huge arrears of rent amounting more than `.59,00,000/- is pending as on the date of the suit. Hence, he submits that the application filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the trial Court, the order of dismissal may be confirmed. 10. I have perused the documents produced before the Court. Though the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that during the first week of November 2012, the petitioner came to know about the exparte decree, even to this date, he has not filed an application for setting aside the exparte order under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. The Execution Court has found that the petitioner having not availed the said opportunity cannot be heard of complaining about the compliance of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without approaching the proper Court for setting aside the exparte decree. The execution Court has further considered the application filed by the petitioner and has held that the Judgment debtor/petitioner has not made out sufficient grounds to reject the execution petition and to refer the matter to the sole Arbitrator and hence dismissed the application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 11. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and also the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction since the order is neither perverse nor illegal nor against the settled principles of law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Any factual observations made in this order shall not come in the way of the parties agitating their rights before any other forums available to them under law.