ORDER : Sri. J.S. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Sri. V.G. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally. 4. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia have assailed the validity of the order dated 25.09.2013 by the Trial Court has held that it has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and the order dated 13.04.2015 by which the prayer of the petitioners to hear the issue with regard to suit being barred by limitation as a preliminary issue has been rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that in the agreement executed between the parties dated 26.02.2007, there is an arbitration clause namely Clause No.34 which reads as under: “34. In the case of any dispute or difference of opinion between the parties hereto, the matter shall be referred to arbitration and accordingly the provisions contained in the Indian Arbitration Act shall apply.” 6. In view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is duty bound to refer the dispute to the arbitration. However, instead of referring the dispute to the arbitration in view of the agreement between the parties, the Trial court has held that it has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from jurisdictional infirmity as well as an error apparent on the face of the record and it is accordingly quashed. The Trial Court is directed to refer the dispute between the parties in view of Clause 34 of the agreement read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.