JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.4, Jodhpur has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking injunction against the respondent- Bank qua the loan obtained by the appellant and for seeking injunction regarding enforcement of the cheques issued alongwith taking possession of the vehicle. 3. An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') alongwith agreement entertained into between the parties was filed by the respondent and it was inter-alia stated that there is arbitration agreement between the parties and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the agreement filed by the defendant rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal wherein the first appellate court after considering the agreement upheld the order passed by the trial court. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that for the purpose of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the courts are required to only look at the plaint and any document filed by the defendant cannot be looked into by the trial court and therefore, the orders passed by both the courts below are vitiated and same gives right to substantial question of law. 7. Reliance has been placed on Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh & Ors. : 2012(2) WLC (SC) Civil 254 ; Saleem Bhai & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : AIR 2003 SC 759 ; Smt. Dev Bai v. Addl. Civil Judge No.1, Kota & Ors. : 2012(3) WLC (Raj.) 289. 8. A bare look at the orders reveal that the application was not filed by the respondent under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The application was decided under Section 8 of the Act, which reads as under:- "8. : AIR 2003 SC 759 ; Smt. Dev Bai v. Addl. Civil Judge No.1, Kota & Ors. : 2012(3) WLC (Raj.) 289. 8. A bare look at the orders reveal that the application was not filed by the respondent under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The application was decided under Section 8 of the Act, which reads as under:- "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." 9. Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 itself contemplates that the application should be accompanied by original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. Once, the application filed by the respondent was not under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, there was no warrant in law not to look into the agreement as filed by the respondent, which was mandatorily required to be filed alongwith application under Section 8 of the Act. 10. Both the courts having come to the conclusion that there was arbitration agreement between the parties, were justified in rejecting the suit filed by the plaintiff and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju : (2000) 4 SCC 539 once an application under Section 8 of the Act is allowed, it is not required for the court to keep the suit pending and therefore, also the courts were justified in rejecting the plaint. 11. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******