JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The defendants becoming aggrieved, from, the concurrently recorded verdicts, by, both the learned courts below, wherethrough, the plaintiff''s suit, as, reared against the defendants, and, seeking therethrough rendition, of, a decree of accounts, and, recovery of Rs. 4,50,000/, became decreed, hence, thereagainst, rear, the instant appeal before this Court, obviously hence, for, begetting reversal(s) thereof. 2. This Court, on 22.4.2015, had, admitted the appeal, instituted by the defendants/appellants, and, denied against, the judgment and decree, rendered, by the learned first Appellate Court, upon, the hereinafter extracted, substantial question of law, for, its hence making, an adjudication thereon:- 1. Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings and misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by both courts below are erroneous and as such the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable? Substantial question of Law No.1: 3. The contesting litigants, do not, in their respective pleadings hence make, any, wrangles, vis-a-vis, the amount, disbursable to the plaintiff, bearing commensuration, vis-a-vis, the notification, as, embodied in Ext. PW-1/A, wherein, the apposite economic system, is, expostulated. However, when DW1, stepped into witness box, he made a deposition, vis-avis, the entire suit amount, becoming untenably liquidated, to, the plaintiff, rather, in, consonance with, Ext. PW-1/A, and, thereupon, the, agreement, drawn inter-se the contesting litigants, and, as embodied in Ext. PW-3/B, becoming breached. Thereonwards, a, further, articulation exists in, the, cross-examination, of, DW-1, and, wherethrough he contradicts, the, afore acquiescences, occurring in his examination-in-chief, and, wherein he deposes, vis-a-vis, Ext. PW-1/A, rather, governing the mode, of, disbursable payments, to the plaintiff, in as much as, he denies qua the payment(s) becoming defrayed, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, in, consonance with the economic system. However, the afore contrary echoings, are, reconcilable, from, a perusal of the agreement, on record, and, drawn inter-se the contesting litigants, and, as embodied in Ext. PW3/A, (i) wherein, vis-a-vis, supply(ies) as, made to the defendants, by the plaintiff, the rates thereof becoming covenanted hence to become governed, by a notification, borne in Ext. However, the afore contrary echoings, are, reconcilable, from, a perusal of the agreement, on record, and, drawn inter-se the contesting litigants, and, as embodied in Ext. PW3/A, (i) wherein, vis-a-vis, supply(ies) as, made to the defendants, by the plaintiff, the rates thereof becoming covenanted hence to become governed, by a notification, borne in Ext. PW-1/A. Conspicuously, hence despite, the afore intra-se contradictions, occurring in the testification, of, DW-1, the defendants rather acquiesce, vis-a-vis, the defrayble monetary claims vis-a-vis the plaintiff, becoming governed, by the notification, as, existing, at the relevant period, in notification whereof, the, requisite economic system becomes echoed, hence necessitating adherence thereto. Nowat, with the defendants omitting to place on record any evidence, hence displaying qua in consonance, with the afore economic system, theirs liquidating, the, suit money to the plaintiff. Consequently, the afore omission of the defendants, in, not adducing the afore best evidence, also necessitates, the making, of, and adversial finding against them, qua hence the suit amount, rather remaining unliquidated, to, the plaintiff. Consequently, the, decreeing, of, the plaintiff''s suit, in, the afore manner, rather by both the learned courts below, does not suffer, from any infirmity. 4. However, during the course, of, hearing, the learned counsel, for, the aggrieved defendants, has, made a vigorous submission, before this Court, that, given the existence, of, an arbitration clause, in the apposite agreement, drawn amongst, the, contesting litigants, and, as embodied in Ext. PW-3/B, (i) thereupon, the, apt civil suit becoming, a, misrecoursed remedy, hence this Court, becoming constrained, to, decline to affirm, the, concurrently recorded verdicts, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, rather by, both the learned courts below, (ii) and, hence it proceeding to direct the plaintiff, to, recourse, the, contemplated, in, Ext. PW-3/B, rather remedy, of, arbitration. Though, the afore submission holds visibly underlings, vis-a-vis, the exercise, of, jurisdiction, vis-a-vis, the apposite civil suit, by the learned trial Judge, becoming inapt. However, the afore submission would become accepted only, upon, the defendants'' afore espousal, becoming made, before the learned Civil Judge, hence, within the ambit, of, the, statutory contemplation, hence, borne in Section 8, of, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (iii) and, also upon, despite the afore remedy becoming recoursed, by the defendants, yet it becoming unbefittingly declined. However, the afore submission would become accepted only, upon, the defendants'' afore espousal, becoming made, before the learned Civil Judge, hence, within the ambit, of, the, statutory contemplation, hence, borne in Section 8, of, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (iii) and, also upon, despite the afore remedy becoming recoursed, by the defendants, yet it becoming unbefittingly declined. However, a perusal of the orders recorded, on 18.7.2007 by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather unveils qua, the afore remedy becoming strived, to be recoursed, before the learned Civil Judge concerned, (iv) yet, the apposite application, cast, within the mandate, of, the afore provisions, of the Arbitration, and, Conciliation Act, becoming withdrawn, and, hence became rejected, as, withdrawn. The effect, of, the afore orders, as made on 18.7.2007, upon, the afore motion, cast therebefore, by the defendants, is qua it completely ousting, the, hereat endevour, of, the learned counsel, for, the defendants, qua, the apposite suit becoming mis-constituted, and, also becoming a mis-constituted remedy, and, also, the, exercise of jurisdiction, upon, the civil suit, by, the learned Civil Judge, hence, becoming inapt. 4. The above discussion, unfolds, qua the conclusion(s), as arrived by the learned first appellate Court, being based, upon a proper, and, mature appreciation, of, evidence on record. Accordingly, no question(s), of law, much less, any, substantial question of law, arises, for, determination, by this Court. 5. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal, is, dismissed, and, the judgment and decree impugned, before this Court, is, affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.