JUDGMENT : 1. The present Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1-Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jodhpur against the impugned order dated 18.10.2008 passed in “Devendra Kumar Suhalka Vs. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills & Ors.” by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur by which, the learned District Judge has rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner-defendant No.1. 2. The petitioner-defendant No.1-Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jodhpur aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2008 rejecting their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has filed the present revision petition. 3. The learned Trial Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur has rejected the application of the defendant No.1 on the ground that as per Clause (14) of the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT), in case of the dispute, if any, in relation to the acceptance or rejection of any application or tender given in pursuance of the aforesaid NIT, the same may be referred to the Arbitrator, who is the In-charge and Managing Director of the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited itself and the clause (14) is only a condition mentioned in the NIT and does not form part of the final agreement/contract between the parties for vending of liquor and, therefore, the plaintiff had a right to recover the dues payable by the defendants (Ganganagar Sugar Mills), after performance of the contract on his part by filing the present suit and it was not necessary to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act of 1996'). 4. 4. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Udaipur in the impugned order dated 18.10.2008 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- ^^mijksDr ds dze esa voyksdu fd;s tkus ij ;g Li”V jgk gSa fd izfroknh la[;k&1 }kjk fnukad 16-6-2006 dh foKfIr ls ns’kh efnjk ds [kqnjk fodz; gsrq vkosnu ekaxs x;s Fks rFkk mDr foKfIr dh gh pj.k la[;k 13 oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr dh xbZ izfr esa ¼pj.k la[;k&14 izfroknh dze&1 dh vksj ls izLrqr dh xbZ izfr½ esa tks vadu fd;k x;k gSa] og i{kdkjksa ds chp ds vuqcU/k dk fgLlk ugha gksdj oLrqr% vkosnu ekaxs tkus ls lEcfU/kr foKfIr ds ‘krZ ds :i esa jgk gSa rFkk mDr Hkkx esa Hkh Li”V :i ls vkosnu QkeZ dks Lohdkj vFkok vLohdkj djus dk vf/kdkj izcU/kd oxZ esa jguk o fookn dh n’kk esa izHkkjh funs’kd jktLFkku jkT; xaxkuxj ‘kqxj feYl fyfeVsM t;iqj ,d ek= iap gksus o mldk fu.kZ; nksuksa i{kksa dks ekU; jgus ds :i esa fy[kk x;k gSa] ftlls Hkh ;g Li”V :i ls n`f”Vxr gSa fd mDr iap dh O;oLFkk vkefU=r vkosnu i= dks Lohdkj vFkok vLohdkj fd;s tkus ds fu.kZ; ds lEcU/k esa gksus okys fookn ds fuiVkjs gsrq gh dh xbZ gSa rFkk mDr O;oLFkk vkosnu Lohdkj gks tkus ds dze esa tUe ysus okys vuqcU/k ds dze esa gksus okys fookn ds fuLrkj.k gsrq ugha jgh gSa] fu’p; gh mDr vkosnu vkefU=r fd;s tkus dh foKfIr ftlesa fd mDr lfgr lHkh ‘krsZ vafdr gS] i{kdkjksa ds chp dk vuqcU/k ugha gS rFkk oknh }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s okn i= ds vfHkopu vuq:i oknh ds i{k esa vkosnu i= Lohdkj gks tkus ds i’pkr~ rFkk oknh }kjk vius fgLls dh lafonk iw.kZ dj fn;s tkus ds i’pkr~ izfroknhx.k }kjk dj fn;s tkus ds i’pkr~ izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh dks ns; jgus okyh deh’ku dh jkf’k cdk;k jgus rFkk mDr jkf’k dks olwy djus dh oknh dh vf/kdkfjrk ds fofu’p; ds lEcU/k esa i{kdkjksa ds chp e/;LFke~ ,oa lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 mYysf[kr vuq:i dksbZ e/;Lrrk vuqcU/k dk vfLrRo bl voLFkk ij ifjyf{kr gh ugha gS] ftlds dkj.k /kkjk 5 vFkok /kkjk 8 e/;LFke~ ,oa lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 ds izko/kku fdlh Hkh Lo:i esa vkd`”B ugha gksrs gSa rFkk bl dze esa izfroknh la[;k 1 dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gksdj [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; jgk gSaA vkns’k mijksDr foospu o fo’ys”k.k ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh la[;k&1 dh vksj izLrqr fd;k x;k vkosnu i= vUrxZr vkns’k&7 fu;e 11 lifBr /kkjk 5 o 8 e/;LFke~ ,oa lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSaA ,lMh@& ¼vkj-ds- ekgs’ojh½ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k ¼QkLV Vªsd½ dze la[;k&5 mn;iqjA** 5. The learned counsel, Mr. Manish Shishodia, appearing for the petitioner-defendant No.1-Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jodhpur submitted except Clause (14) incorporated in the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) for the sale of country-liquor for the period in question, there being no separate contract or agreement between the parties on the basis of which, the dispute in relation to the payment of commission on the sale of country liquor ought to have been referred to the Arbitrator and the matter was covered by Clause (14), therefore, the learned Trial Court has fallen into an error apparent in rejecting the application of the defendant No.1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel also submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.7,74,540/-, in the aforesaid circumstances, deserves to be dismissed and the matter ought to have been referred to the Arbitrator. The learned counsel prayed that present revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 18.10.2008 deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suresh Shrimali and Mr. Narendra Thanvi, appearing for the plaintiff-Devendra Kumar Suhalka urged that the said Clause (14) incorporated in the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) is only a condition in relation to the acceptance and rejection of the applications in pursuance of the aforesaid NIT and in case of any dispute only with regard to the acceptance and rejection of such applicaitons, the same was to be referred to the Arbitrator, who is the Managing Director of the Company. The learned counsels also submitted that for the aforesaid reason, the Clause (14) does not form part of the contract/licence given by the defendant (Ganganagar Sugar Mills) to the liquor contractors. Therefore, any dispute, arising between the parties, after the performance and execution of the contract could not be referred to the Arbitrator. The learned counsels also submitted that for the aforesaid reason, the Clause (14) does not form part of the contract/licence given by the defendant (Ganganagar Sugar Mills) to the liquor contractors. Therefore, any dispute, arising between the parties, after the performance and execution of the contract could not be referred to the Arbitrator. The learned counsels further submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the defendant No.1 and has rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and proceeded to try the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.7,74,540/- due from the defendants on account of commission on the sale of country liquor and, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.10.2008 does not call for any interference. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in its impugned order dated 18.10.2008 for rejecting the application of the defendant No.1-Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jodhpur filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is satisfied that the Clause (14) incorporated in the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) does not form part of the final contract/licence executed and granted by the defendant-Ganganagar Sugar Mills in favour of the liquor contractor, the plaintiff. It is only a condition mentioned in the NIT issued by the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited only for deciding the dispute at the preliminary stage of acceptance or rejection of the applications of the various persons and, therefore, the same cannot per se or impliedly be deemed to be an arbitration clause for referring the disputes, if any, between the parties to the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act of 1996. 8. In these circumstances, on the strength of this Clause (14), the defendant No.1 cannot be permitted to contend that the matter relating to the dispute of payment of commission on the sale of country liquor ought to have been referred to the Arbitrator and the plaintiff-Devendra Kumar Suhalka is not entitled to claim by filing civil suit Rs.7,74,540/-, as mentioned in the plaint, from the defendants, after performance of the contract, in which, the Arbitration Clause is conspicuous by its absence. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the present revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 is thus found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. This order will, however, not prevent the Court below or the parties to agree for any of the five modes of ADR, including arbitration, mediation etc., in terms of Section 89 CPC in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Afcon Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Ltd. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 24 , para 33 & 34. 10. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Revision Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant No.1. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jodhpur stands dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith.