Judgment : Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The plaintiffs in OS No. 117 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, filed this revision feeling aggrieved by an order, dated 3.11.2011 passed in IA No. 2946 of 2010 filed therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs are spouses and they borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- from the 1st defendant-finance company in the year 2008. It was agreed to be repaid in 60 monthly instalments. An item of immovable property was mortgaged. At one point of time, the plaintiffs intended to liquidate the lone by paying the outstanding instalments and to redeem the mortgage. The documents that are entered into between the parties contained an arbitration clause. 4. The proposal mooted by the plaintiffs for liquidation of the loan half way through was not acceded to by the defendants. They invoked the arbitration clause and addressed a letter requiring the plaintiffs to participate therein. Sensing that the defendants are trying to encash the blank cheques issued by the plaintiffs, for repayment of instalments, the they filed AAOP No.3 of 2012 in the Court of Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short ‘the Act’) for certain interim measure viz., to restrain the defendants from encashing the blank cheques. The trial court did not pass any favourable orders. Therefore, they approached this Court by filing CMA No.1085 of 2012. This Court allowed the appeal and restrained the defendants from encashing the blank cheques pending arbitration proceedings. 5. Even while the O.P. was pending the plaintiffs filed the present suit i.e., OS No.117 of 2010 against the defendants for redemption of the mortgage. The defendants in turn filed IA No.2946 of 2010 under Section 8 of the Act. They pleaded that the relationship between the parties in governed by an agreement which contained an arbitration clause and in that view of the matter, the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiffs opposed the application. According to them, the right which they proposed to enforce is covered by statute and it cannot constitute the subject-matter of an arbitration. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through the order under revision. 6. The plaintiffs opposed the application. According to them, the right which they proposed to enforce is covered by statute and it cannot constitute the subject-matter of an arbitration. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through the order under revision. 6. Sri D.V. Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that it is no doubt true that there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, that is entered into between the parties, but the relief which they claimed in the suit cannot constitute the subject-matter of the arbitration. He submits that the foreclosure of mortgage or for the matter, redemption is purely governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and that an arbitrator cannot be expected to adjudicate the disputes of that nature. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and others, (2011) 5 SCC 532 , and certain other decisions. 7. Sri Maheswar Rao Kunchem learned Counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, submits that once there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, institution of any proceedings is prohibited under law. He submits that the plaintiffs invoked the arbitration clause, much before the filing of the present suit and they cannot turn around and raise an objection, when the same is invoked by the defendants. He too has placed reliance upon the certain precedents. 8. There exists a transaction of mortgage between the parties herein. In addition to creation of mortgage, the defendants have obtained blank cheques covering the amount of 60 monthly instalments. As of now, more than 40 instalments have been paid. However, there is some dispute between the parties as to the amount, which is required to be paid to liquidate the entire transaction. The defendants did not agree for it. They invoked the arbitration clause and addressed a letter requiring the plaintiffs to participate therein. Anticipating that the blank cheques would be encashed, the plaintiffs filed AAOP No.3 of 2013 for certain interim measures. The trial Court did not accede to that and this Court allowed CMA No. 1085 of 2012 filed against it. 9. The plaintiffs filed an independent suit with a specific prayer for redemption of the mortgage. Anticipating that the blank cheques would be encashed, the plaintiffs filed AAOP No.3 of 2013 for certain interim measures. The trial Court did not accede to that and this Court allowed CMA No. 1085 of 2012 filed against it. 9. The plaintiffs filed an independent suit with a specific prayer for redemption of the mortgage. Obviously because the defendants have already kept the process of arbitration in motion, they filed IA No. 2946 of 2010 under section 8 of the Act. The Trial Court allowed the I.A., by taking into account the fact the arbitration is already in progress. If one goes by the basic facts, it would not become difficult to agree with the view taken by the trial Court. The reason is that the existence of agreement and a clause providing for arbitration therein are not disputed and the arbitration is also said to have been commenced. However, if one takes into account the strict legal principles that govern the present situation, a different view becomes possible. 10. The very occasion to include a clause providing for arbitration arises, when the parties to the transaction enter into a contract or agreement. By itself, an arbitration clause does not exist independently. It finds place in company with many other clauses that govern the relationship between the parties in relation to a commercial or other similar transaction. By their very nature, the arbitration clauses govern the relationship between the parties, which are purely contractual in nature or those arise out of the agreement between them. However, if a situation, which is purely governed by a provision of law arises, even from the same transaction, arbitration cannot be a remedy for that. In other words, an arbitration cannot be a substitute for a regular Court of law, for adjudication of disputes which are strictly governed by the substantive provision of law. In Booz Allen’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court maintained this distinction and categorically held that such of the disputes which are strictly governed by the provisions of substantive law, even if arising out of a contract between the parties, cannot constitute the subject-matter of an arbitration. By way of illustration, their Lordship furnished several instances. 11. The redemption of mortgage is a specific right conferred by the Transfer of Property Act upon a mortgagee, just as the right of foreclosure is conferred upon a mortgagor. By way of illustration, their Lordship furnished several instances. 11. The redemption of mortgage is a specific right conferred by the Transfer of Property Act upon a mortgagee, just as the right of foreclosure is conferred upon a mortgagor. Several contentions, which are governed by Chapter IV of the Transfer of Property Act need to be addressed by the Court and the principles of law emanating from such provision need to be applied. That would, naturally, be outside the purview of adjudication by an arbitrator. 12. It is not in dispute that the only remedy claimed in the present suit is, the redemption of mortgage. The trial court no doubt has taken into account, the existence of arbitration clause and purport thereof. However, if one takes into account, the specific prayer in the suit, it becomes clear that the suit of that nature is not at all barred by the arbitration clause. 13. We accordingly allow the civil revision petition and set aside the order under revision. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferable within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of There shall be no order as to costs.