JUDGMENT & ORDER : S. Serto, J. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the order dated 01.03.2013, of the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, passed in Title Suit No. 42 of 2012. 2. Facts and circumstances of the case is that following an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, the respondents started the work of installing mobile tower along with its accompanying accessories, equipments including a generator, on the terrace of the building of the petitioner. But, before the work could be completed, differences between the parties cropped up, therefore, the petitioner filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, praying for injunction to stop further construction for installation of the cellular tower and its accompanying machineries and also praying for removal of all that was constructed and installed and for a decree for realization of the rent already due. The same was registered as Title Suit No. 42 of 2012. 3. On receipt of notice the respondent appeared and prayed for time to file written statement. But, after about five months, instead of filing written statement, an application was filed by the respondents/defendants praying for an order to refer the matter to an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, claiming that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement signed between them. The application was filed along with a photo copy of the agreement. The petitioner/plaintiff objected the prayer of the respondent on the ground that the provision of clause (2) of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates filing of the original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy of the same was not complied with while filing the application. 4. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties allowed the application based on two grounds; (i) that the agreement contains arbitration clause is admitted by both the parties and a photo copy was filed at the time of filing the application and (ii) that the original copy of the agreement was produced at the time of hearing. At the same time the learned Civil Judge also dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 5. At the same time the learned Civil Judge also dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 5. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner/plaintiff has come on revision before this Court, praying for setting aside the impugned order mainly on the ground that the application of the respondent, since it was not accompanied with original or certified copy of the agreement, should not have been allowed as the same did not comply with clause (2) of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6. Heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is mandatory for the applicant who seeks reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to file the original or certified copy of the agreement as provided under clause 2 of the same section. But, since the respondents/applicants did not do so, the application should have been dismissed at the threshold. The learned counsel cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers and others, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 72 , relevant Para 29. The contents of the same is reproduced here below: "But it is to be noted herein that the claim of the appellant regarding the dispute was under the arbitration clause mentioned under the original partnership deed and not on the subsequent one. Since the original deed was not filed within the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Act, it must be held that the mandatory requirement under the Act had not been complied with. Accordingly, even if we accept the factum of a dispute relating to the retirement of the appellant under the original deed dated 7th of April, 2003, still the Court would not be empowered to refer the matter to an Arbitrator due to the non compliance of the provisions mentioned under Section 8(2) of the Act." The learned counsel further submitted that where a law requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all. He also submitted that the learned Civil Judge had totally ignored the mandatory requirements of clause (2) of the Section 8 of the Act, therefore, has breached this settled principle of law. He also submitted that the learned Civil Judge had totally ignored the mandatory requirements of clause (2) of the Section 8 of the Act, therefore, has breached this settled principle of law. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted as follows: That it is admitted by both the parties that there existed an agreement between the parties which incorporated arbitration clause, and a photocopy of the same was filed along with the application and, in support thereof the original copy of the said agreement was produced at the time of hearing, therefore, the learned Civil Judge did not commit any error in law in having allowed the application for referring the dispute to an arbitrator. That since the original copy of the agreement was produced at the time of hearing, the petitioner/plaintiff was not in any way prejudiced/aggrieved by non-filing of the same along with the application under section 8 of the Act. The learned counsel referred to the cases reported in; (i) (2007) 7 SCC 737 ; (ii) (2003) 6 SCC 503 ; and (iii) (2000) 4 SCC 539 . 8. I have gone through the judgments relied and referred to by both the counsels. Before going further, it would be appropriate to refer to the contents of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is given below: "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. (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. On cursory perusal of the heading of Section 8 along with the contents of clause (1) of the same section, makes it clear that when it is brought to the notice of the Court before which a dispute is pending that there was an agreement between the parties which contains arbitration clause, what the Court must do is refer that dispute to arbitration. But, before doing that the person who has brought to the notice of the Court must first discharge a mandatory obligation as provided under clause (2) of the same section. Clause (2) of the same section makes is mandatory that such application should be accompanied with the original or duly certified copy of the agreement. The words of clause (2) "shall not be entertained unless" leaves no room for doubt of the legislative intent that the preconditions given in the provision is mandatory. Therefore, the applicant had no choice other than complying with the conditions mentioned therein. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and already quoted at Para-6 of this judgment is a confirmation on this view. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the decision of the learned Civil Judge allowing the application for referring the dispute to arbitration on the grounds given by him is erroneous. The Court is not empowered to refer the dispute to an arbitrator as the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act, was not complied with. At the cost of repetition but to make it a little more clearer the word "shall not be entertained unless" makes it amply clear that the application should not have been entertained at the very first instance. In other words, such application which is not accompanied with original or duly certified copy of the agreement should have been nipped at the bud. Therefore, the occasion of hearing such application and production of the original copy should not have arisen at all. 11. In other words, such application which is not accompanied with original or duly certified copy of the agreement should have been nipped at the bud. Therefore, the occasion of hearing such application and production of the original copy should not have arisen at all. 11. Now, reverting to the impugned order, it appear that the learned Civil Judge misunderstood the context or facts and circumstances under which the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order allowing the application for reference to arbitration, in the case of Bharat Sewa Sansthan v. UP Electronics Ltd. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 737 . In that case the original copy of the agreement, containing arbitration clause, was with the respondent and not with the applicant. Therefore, the applicant could not have been expected to file the original agreement which was not in his possession. It was in such circumstance that the order allowing such application was allowed in that case. However, in this case the facts and circumstances are different, the original agreement was admittedly in the possession of the applicant, therefore, when he failed to present the same along with the application, he did it at his own peril. And the learned Civil Judge should not have crossed its jurisdiction by accepting the application and allowing the original copy of the agreement to be produced at the time of hearing. 12. In view what has been stated above, the impugned order in my opinion deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. Consequently, the suit is restored. If any of the parties so desire to refer their dispute to an arbitrator they may file a fresh application in consonance with the provisions of Section 8 (1) and (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. With this the revision petition is allowed.