Order P.S. Rana, Judge Present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against order dated 4.6.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No. VI Shimla in civil suit No. 38/1 of 2012 titled Kavita Bhaskar vs. H.P. General Industries Corporation Ltd. Brief facts of the case 2. Plaintiff Smt. Kavita Bhaskar filed civil suit for recovery of Rs.21,318/-(Rupees twenty one thousand three hundred eighteen only) along with interest and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 13.10.2009. It is pleaded that plaintiff carries business of sale and supply of hospital equipments and surgical items. It is pleaded that defendant placed order for purchase of various medical and surgical items as per requirements of various hospitals. It is pleaded that written agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 2.1.2009 placed on record. It is pleaded that plaintiff supplied material to the defendant vide invoice Nos. 2176, 2177 and 2178 dated 16.3.2009 amounting to Rs. 295800/- (Rupees two lacs ninety five thousand eight hundred only). It is pleaded that defendant vide cheque dated 13.10.2009 paid an amount of Rs. 274482/- (Rupees two lacs seventy four thousand four hundred eighty two only) and withheld an amount to the tune of Rs. 21318/- (Rupees twenty one thousand three hundred eighteen only). During the pendency of suit plaintiff filed application under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure pleaded therein that defendant has filed written statement and defendant took preliminary objection No. 2 in written statement that as per terms and conditions of written agreement there is provision for arbitration proceedings as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and present suit is not maintainable. Plaintiff sought the relief from learned trial Court that plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the present civil suit with permission to file claim before Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in view of written agreement executed inter se the parties. Non-petitioner filed response to application pleaded therein that application is not maintaibale and defect is not formal in nature. It is pleaded that arbitration clause was already in the knowledge of petitioner when civil suit was filed. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 3. Non-petitioner filed response to application pleaded therein that application is not maintaibale and defect is not formal in nature. It is pleaded that arbitration clause was already in the knowledge of petitioner when civil suit was filed. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 3. Learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by plaintiff on the ground that as per Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) CPC there is no provision to permit the plaintiff to agitate the matter afresh before the Arbitrator. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- 1. Whether petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Final Order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that agreement dated 2.1.2009 was executed inter se parties placed on record and as per condition No. 23 of the agreement there is arbitration clause and in view of this arbitration clause in agreement executed inter se the parties petitioner is legally entitled for relief as sought in application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of CPC is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Plaintiff has sought the relief of money decree to the tune of ` 21318/- (Rupees twenty one thousand three hundred eighteen only) along with interest and future interest on the ground that plaintiff had supplied medical and surgical items to defendant but defendant did not pay the requisite amount to the plaintiff for supply of medical material. Defendant took the preliminary objection that in view of arbitration Clause in agreement executed inter se the parties and as per condition No. 23 of said agreement the civil suit is not maintainable. Section 23 of agreement dated 2.1.2009 is quoted in toto:- 23. Defendant took the preliminary objection that in view of arbitration Clause in agreement executed inter se the parties and as per condition No. 23 of said agreement the civil suit is not maintainable. Section 23 of agreement dated 2.1.2009 is quoted in toto:- 23. Arbitration: Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in this agreement if any question of differences or objection whatsoever arises in any way in connection with or arising out of this instrument or the meaning of or operation of the same by either party then save in so far the decision of any such matter including whether such decision has been otherwise provided for and/or whether it has been finally decided accordingly or whether contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated in whole or in part and as regards the rights and obligations of the party as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration to be appointed by second party and his/her decision shall be final and binding on both the parties. Such arbitration proceedings shall be in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Concliation Act of 1996. 7. As per Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 the Court can refer the civil suit to (1) Arbitration. (2) Conciliation. (3) Judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat. (4) Mediation. Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates learned trial Court to give the opportunity to party to settle the civil dispute through any mode specified in Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In view of the fact that preliminary objection took by defendant that matter should be decided by arbitrator and in view of the fact that as per condition No. 23 of agreement executed inter se the parties, there is provision of arbitration qua any dispute occurred inter se the parties Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow the plaintiff to agitate the matter before Arbitrator. As per Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC Court should satisfy two things. (1) That suit must fail by reason of some formal defect. (2) That there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute fresh suit relating to same subject matter or such part of claim. Court is of the opinion that parties should satisfy either one of the conditions mentioned under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. (1) That suit must fail by reason of some formal defect. (2) That there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute fresh suit relating to same subject matter or such part of claim. Court is of the opinion that parties should satisfy either one of the conditions mentioned under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Court is of the opinion that words “sufficient grounds” as mentioned under Section 3(b) should be interpreted in the ends of justice. In view of the fact that defendant took preliminary objection of arbitration clause in written statement and in view of fact that there is written agreement inter se the parties placed on record dated 2.01.2009 wherein there is specific provision for arbitration as per condition No. 23 of agreement, Court is of the opinion that case of petitioner covers within sufficient grounds mentioned in Clause 3 (b) of Order XXIII of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 See (2015)8 SCC 193 titled Ashapura Mine-Chem Limited vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation. Hence point No.1 is decided in favour of petitioner. Point No.2 (Final Order) 8. In view of findings in point No. 1 order of learned trial Court dated 4.6.2012 passed in civil suit No. 38/1 of 2012 titled Kavita Bhaskar vs. H.P. General Industries Corporation Ltd. is set aside and application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC by petitioner is allowed and petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present civil suit with liberty to file statement of claim before the Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Arbitrator will be appointed by non-petitioner i.e. H.P. General Industries Corporation Ltd. in view of condition No. 23 of agreement within one month from today and thereafter Arbitrator will pass the arbitral award strictly as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. No order as to costs. Record of learned trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. CMPMO No. 405 of 2014 stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.