JUDGMENT : Indrajit Chatterjee, J. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order no. 46 dated 22.6.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri in Money Suit No. 13 of 2004. In that impugned order, learned trial court was pleased to allow one application filed by the State of West Bengal and others under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing that the matter is to be decided by the Chief Engineer of the Department, the sole arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the agreement to settle the dispute so raised by the plaintiff. 2. The fact relevant for the purpose of deciding this revisional application can be stated below in brief thus:-That the petitioner is the sole proprietor of the business under the name and style as “S. Sanyal & Co.”. One tender notice was published for reconstruction of a bridge. The contract was secured by the petitioner and an approach was made to the authority to hand over the site of the works but the site could not be handed over. There was shifting of the venue and site, plan etc. The petitioner bore with all these and was eager to go on with the construction works but for some reason or other, the project did not mature. The security deposit worth Rs. 4,00,000/- and odd was forfeited. The matter was taken before the Arbitrator in respect of other claims as per the Arbitration Clause mentioned in that tender. The Arbitrator passed its award. It has been fully satisfied. 3. This petitioner filed a money suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri within the district of Darjeeling praying for a money decree for the security deposit amounting to Rs. 4,03,524/- with interest at the rate of 9.5% thereon, declaring that imposition of penal Clause 2, which followed to recession of contract vide Memo no. 20-7/191/1(2) dated 08-02-2001 by the defendant no. 4 was illegal or invalid. The plaintiff/petitioner also prayed for damage or attachment of property etc. 4. The defendant appeared and came up with an application under Section 8 of the said Act claiming, inter alia, that as per Clause 25 of the tender the Chief Engineer is the sole authority to appoint one Arbitrator to decide regarding the return of that security deposit. The plaintiff/petitioner also prayed for damage or attachment of property etc. 4. The defendant appeared and came up with an application under Section 8 of the said Act claiming, inter alia, that as per Clause 25 of the tender the Chief Engineer is the sole authority to appoint one Arbitrator to decide regarding the return of that security deposit. Learned trial court allowed that application and directed the parties to approach the Chief Engineer of the Department, the sole Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement to settle the dispute so raised by the plaintiff. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the present revisional application is very much maintainable in view of Section 37 of the said Act. He cited a decision of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 1989 SC 952 (Vishwanath Sood v. Union of India) wherein the Apex Court made it clear vide paragraph 10 of the judgment to determine the issue, the power is vested on the court in view of Clause 25 of the tender “Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to …” 6. It may be noted that in spite of service, none is opposing the prayer made by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed that the order impugned be set aside and the court will determine the issue itself as to whether the security deposit is refundable or not. It is also his submission that the court will also consider the other claims as made out in that money suit. 7. I have gone through the arbitral award which is annexure P-1 of this application. On scrutiny of the said arbitral award it appears that the matter of arbitration of dispute arose out of contract/tender no. 1/A of 1999-2000 of the Superintending Engineer National Highway Circle-III as regards the execution of work named reconstruction of the bridge across river Vandari-I at 195 km of NH-31c in the district of Jalpaiguri. I have gone through the revisional application wherefrom it is clear that the said tender no. 1/A of 1999-2000 is the subject matter of this revisional application. It appears further that in that arbitral award the entire dispute was resolved. I have gone through the revisional application wherefrom it is clear that the said tender no. 1/A of 1999-2000 is the subject matter of this revisional application. It appears further that in that arbitral award the entire dispute was resolved. There is nothing in the said arbitral award to convince this Court that the security deposit was left by the Arbitrator as that was not arbitrable one. It is apparent that the said arbitral award has been duly executed to the full satisfaction of the present petitioner. There was ample scope before the arbitrator to ventilate the grievance of the present petitioner as regards the security amount. The petitioner did not ventilate that point before the arbitrator which award became final on 25th of August, 2003 and I repeat that it was duly executed. 8. My question is whether a suit as filed by the present petitioner before the learned trial court for the recovery of the security deposit and ancillary relief is at all maintainable. It is true that the maintainability of that suit has not been assailed before this Court by the State but as a revision court this Court has ample power to quash any proceeding which is being proceeded without valid sanction of law. 9. The learned trial court acting on the application filed by the State of West Bengal under Section 8 of the said Act directed that the matter be placed before the chief engineer of the department who will either act as an Arbitrator or may appoint any separate Arbitrator to settle the dispute raised by the plaintiff in that suit. It is the order impugned. I have gone through the decision of the Apex Court as cited by the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner and on scrutiny of the said judgment I can say that the fact of the case before the Apex Court was perfectly distinguishable from the present case before us. 10. On reading and re-reading Clause-25 appearing in running page no. 69, this Court is satisfied that even the security deposit matter has not been dealt with separately in that tender agreement (annexure P-2). On scrutiny of the said tender agreement I fail to locate any clause therein that the security deposit matter is to be dealt with separately otherwise than as provided in clause 25 of that agreement. 11. 69, this Court is satisfied that even the security deposit matter has not been dealt with separately in that tender agreement (annexure P-2). On scrutiny of the said tender agreement I fail to locate any clause therein that the security deposit matter is to be dealt with separately otherwise than as provided in clause 25 of that agreement. 11. When the entire matter was referred to the Arbitration as per the arbitration agreement the petitioner plaintiff cannot take up this matter again relating to part of the contract separately by filing a suit before the court. Order II Rule 2 which also guides the arbitration proceeding is a clear bar to the further proceeding of that Money Suit No. 13 of 2004. 12. Order II Rule 2(i) runs thus: “Suit to include the whole claim- Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.” 13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is satisfied that the order passed by the learned trial court was against the established legal position. When the entire matter indispute was referred to the Arbitrator, further claim of the petitioner plaintiff is debarred by Rule 2 of Order 11 of the C.P.C. in respect of the security deposit. It can safely be said, as claimed by the petitioner plaintiff in Page no. 106 i.e. the written objection against the application under Section 8 of the Act, that there cannot be a second claim in respect of the same contract/the tender. 14. Thus, in view of the observation made above this revisional application is dismissed ex-parte without costs. 15. Let the further proceeding of Money Suit No. 13 of 2004 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Siliguri, district-Darjeeling be quashed. 16. There will be no order as to costs. 17. Certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties after completion of the necessary formalities. 18. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial court at once.