ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. O.P. Bhati learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned Court of Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 53/2016 is under challenge in this revision petition. The present respondents as plaintiffs filed Tile Suit No. 53/2016 thereby seeking the following relief: “(a) a decree directing the defendants to allot proper parking space as per GMDA approved plan; (b) cost of the suit be decreed and (c) any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs is entitled under law and equity may also be decreed.” 3. The suit was filed against the present petitioners as the defendants. As per the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiffs respondents purchased the residential flat along with one parking space as per GMDA approved plan vide registered sale deed executed on 5.10.2011. The plaintiffs respondents took possession of the aforesaid flat without parking space (as per GMDA approved plan). After protest and demands by the plaintiffs respondents the defendants petitioners vide letter dated 20.8.2011 allotted a temporary parking space w.e.f. 20.8.2011 to 10.9.2011 in lieu of the parking space as per GMDA approved plan. Vide letter dated 14.12.2012 the defendants petitioners officially handed over the possession of the flat as well as one car parking space in the ground floor providing a parking lay out. It is pleaded that the said parking space was not as per GMDA approved plan and demanded a copy of the GMDA approved plan of the parking space from the defendant petitioner. The same was denied to provide but with an assurance to resolve the said problem very soon. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reliefs the suit was filed. Before execution of the registered sale deed both the parties to the suit entered into a registered deed of agreement of sale of flat in Ambika Enclave on ownership basis vide registered deed No. 1142 dated 4.3.2010. The defendants petitioners filed their written statement raising the plea that the suit is not maintainable since the alternative forum i.e. arbitration was agreed to by both the parties for their adjudication of any disputes. Also in the written statement the allegations against the defendants petitioners were denied. 4. The defendants petitioners filed their written statement raising the plea that the suit is not maintainable since the alternative forum i.e. arbitration was agreed to by both the parties for their adjudication of any disputes. Also in the written statement the allegations against the defendants petitioners were denied. 4. The defendants petitioners also filed another application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was registered as Misc(J) Case No.234/2016 for rejection of the plaint. The ground taken in the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is that the plaintiffs respondents in terms of the deed of agreement dated 4.3.2010, out of their own volition paid the consideration amount where after the registered sale deed 6980 dated 5.9.2011 was executed. The said sale deed dated 5.9.2011 and the deed of agreement dated 4.3.2010 are inter related to each other inasmuch as the sale deed is a consequential product having its source from the deed of agreement dated 4.3.2010. Therein the said deed of agreement an arbitration clause is provided under Article 10 and therefore the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. A written objection was filed by the plaintiff respondent denying the contention and stating that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Vide order dated 14.12.2016 the said application was allowed holding as follows: “Hence, in presence of this clause 10.1 on which both the parties have admitted to refer the dispute to arbitration the filling of this instant suit become barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC since the matter deals with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The matter in dispute of this suit would be decided through arbitration. Therefore the plaint of this suit is liable to be cancelled” 5. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs respondents filed a revision petition being numbered as CRP 17/2017 before this Hon’ble Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.5.2017. By the said order this Hon’ble Court held as follows: “1. Therefore the plaint of this suit is liable to be cancelled” 5. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs respondents filed a revision petition being numbered as CRP 17/2017 before this Hon’ble Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.5.2017. By the said order this Hon’ble Court held as follows: “1. In so far as the second question is concerned, it is seen that as per the case of Indian National Trade Union Congress (supra), this court has held that “The provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act would come into play if and only if an application is made by any of the parties to an arbitral agreement requesting for reference of the dispute to arbitration not later than submitting the first statement on the substance of dispute.” Thus, as per the opinion of this court, when there was no application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned trial court, the said learned Court could not have referred the dispute to arbitration. However, in view of above, this court is of the view that in the present case in hand, the respondents/defendants had, along with submitting their statement of defence filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, as such, on the restoration of the suit to file this Court deems it expedient for the ends of justice, to allow the respondents/defendants to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, if so advised. In the considered view of this court, the respondents cannot be left remediless for filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) and not filing application under section 8 of the said 1996 Act. In this regard and for the ends of justice, it is provided that if the respondents/defendants file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in accordance with the law within a period from 15(fifteen) days from the date of restoration of the suit to file, the learned court of Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, shall entertain the same as if the same is filed not later than filing the first statement of defence and upon hearing the parties thereon, shall decide the matter de-novo without being influenced by this order of by the previous orders impugned herein. 2. This revision is, thus, allowed. 2. This revision is, thus, allowed. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 3. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 15.6.2017 without any further notice for appearance in T.S.No. 53/2016.” 6. In view of the direction of this court, the defendants petitioners filed an application u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the dispute for arbitration and necessary adjudication keeping in view the arbitration clause under Article 10.1 in the deed of agreement dated 4.3.2010. The plaintiffs respondents filed their joint written objection against the application u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2017 by the learned trial court dismissing the said application by holding as follows: “Mere existence of an arbitration clause in the sale deed does not preclude a person from instituting a civil suit. In the case of P. Anand Gajapathi Raju (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under section 8 it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their agreement. However, in this present suit in hand there was no such agreement between the parties and the earlier agreement no. 1142 dated 04.03.2010 has already attained its finality in the form of sale deed which is no more an agreement at this present juncture. In view of the above, it becomes clear that there is no such arbitration agreement in this present suit which provides for referring the dispute for arbitration u/s 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Since the agreement has already attained its finality in the form of Sale Deed bearing no. 6980 dated 05.09.2011 and in absence of the arbitration agreement between the parties, the matter in dispute is not liable to be referred for arbitration. Hence the prayer of the petitioner is rejected. Fix 19.1.18 for written statement.” 7. Mr. Since the agreement has already attained its finality in the form of Sale Deed bearing no. 6980 dated 05.09.2011 and in absence of the arbitration agreement between the parties, the matter in dispute is not liable to be referred for arbitration. Hence the prayer of the petitioner is rejected. Fix 19.1.18 for written statement.” 7. Mr. Chamaria submits that as the subject matter parking space was promised to be allotted to the plaintiffs respondents on the basis of the agreement dated 4.3.2010, so if the plaintiffs respondents are dissatisfied in the performance of the terms of the said agreement, they are bound to refer the dispute to the arbitral forum which they promised to perform by accepting the terms and conditions of the said deed of agreement and bypassing the said forum the plaintiffs respondents cannot come for resolving the dispute arising out of the said agreement to the civil court leaving aside the forum they promised to refer any dispute. The learned court below failed to consider the same and on mere execution of the sale deed, the deed of agreement dated 4.3.2010 cannot be held that its force ceased if the dispute is well within the term ‘dispute’ mentioned in the arbitration clause and the source of dispute is from the said deed of agreement. The plaintiffs respondents are bound to refer the dispute to the arbitral forum. Accordingly he sought for interference of this court. 8. Mr. Bhatti on the other hand strongly submits that once the sale deed is executed, the deed of agreement along with arbitration clause becomes irrelevant inasmuch as the principal terms in the agreement for sale are that the plaintiffs respondents would pay a consideration amount and on the other hand the defendants petitioners would transfer the flat along with parking space by executing a valid registered sale deed. In the case in hand, the property was transferred as mentioned in the deed of agreement but it is the claim of the plaintiffs respondents that the parking space allotted must conform to the one approved by the GMDA. Whether the parking space allotted by the defendants petitioners conforms to the GMDA rules, which is the issue before the court below but not an issue regarding allotment of mere parking space. For the said reason Mr. Whether the parking space allotted by the defendants petitioners conforms to the GMDA rules, which is the issue before the court below but not an issue regarding allotment of mere parking space. For the said reason Mr. Bhatti supports the impugned order and as per his submission the court below has rightly passed the order. 9. I have given due consideration to the submission of the learned counsel. The deed of agreement dated 4.3.2010 stipulates the following Articles: “1.1. Subject to the terms and condition hereinafter appearing, the DEVELOPER-CUM-BUILDER have agreed to sell and transfer and the PURCHASER/ALLOTEE has agreed to Purchase and acquire on ownership basis all that said unit/flat ( more fully and particularly mentioned and described in SCHEDULE “C” hereunder written) together with the proportionate share in the land attributable to the building together with the proportionate share in the common parts and portions attributable to the said unit and also together with the right of ingress and egress to the common entrance and exits, all paths and passage ways for the entire building, subject to the purchaser/allotee making the payment of all the amounts agreed to be paid to the developer-cum- builder and also performing and observing all other terms and conditions hereinafter appearing. (v) The developer-cum-builder proposes to have altogether 24 Nos. of Car parking in the Ground floor of the building. As such, shall be entitled to sale the remaining car parking area, after due allotment to the individual flats/units and the purchaser accords its consent in this regard. It is hereby made clear that such extra Parking area which remains with the developer-cum-builder shall be first offered for sale to the occupants of the building and if none of them intends to purchase such parking area than it would be open for the developer-cum-builder, retain it for themselves or sell to someone else. (vi) The purchaser/allotee agrees that the parking space opted for his/her exclusive use shall be understood to be together with the unit/flat and the same shall not have independent legal entity detached from the said unit/flat. The purchaser/allotee undertakes not to sell/transfer/deal with the parking space independent of the said unit/flat. The purchaser/allotee further undertakes to park his/her vehicle in the parking space allottee further undertakes to park his/her vehicle in the parking space allotted to him/her and not anywhere else in the said “Ambika Enclave”. The purchaser/allotee undertakes not to sell/transfer/deal with the parking space independent of the said unit/flat. The purchaser/allotee further undertakes to park his/her vehicle in the parking space allottee further undertakes to park his/her vehicle in the parking space allotted to him/her and not anywhere else in the said “Ambika Enclave”. The Purchaser/Allotee agrees and confirms that the parking space opted by him/her shall automatically be cancelled in the event of cancellation, surrender, relinquishment, resumption, re-possession etc. of the said unit/flat to which the said parking space is attached, under any of the provisions of this agreement. 2.1 In consideration of the above the purchaser/allottee have agreed to pay to the developer-cum-builder a sum of Rs. 21,48,380/- (Rupees twenty one lakh forty eight thousand three hundred and eighty) only towards consideration charge for the unit/flat specified in schedule-C(including 1(one) car Parking Space in the ground floor/parking space) plus Rs 83,000/- totaling to Rs 22,31,380/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs thirty one thousand three hundred and eighty ) only. 6.1. The Developer-cum-Builder will comply with all statutory rules and regulations connected with construction of the multi-storied apartments/building at Ambika Enclave and will keep the purchaser/allotee fully indemnified against all losses, claims, demands, damages which may be suffered by the purchaser/allotee due to any breach and/or non-compliance by the developer-cum-builder. 10.1. All disputes and differences between the parties hereto regarding the construction or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions herein contained and touching these presents or determination of any liability shall be referred to an arbitrator by the developer-cum-builder and the same shall be deemed to be a reference within the meaning of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 10. On the basis of the said agreement for sale the registered sale deed No. 6980 dated 5.8.2011 was executed/transferred, the flat shown in the schedule “C” in the sale deed being reproduced below: “ Schedule “C” Unit/Flat All that Roof Space of Flat No.-“1-D” on First floor, having 1652.60 sq. ft (one thousand six hundred fifty two point sixty square feet) including 20% of super built up area situated in “Ambika Enclave “including one no. of covered car parking space(3.6 x 1.6m) anywhere in the parking area together with undivisible proportionate share in the schedule “A” land measuring 0.67 (Are) together with the proportionate share in the common parts and portions with other purchasers/occupiers of “Ambika Enclave situated at R. Ehabari, Guwahati”. of covered car parking space(3.6 x 1.6m) anywhere in the parking area together with undivisible proportionate share in the schedule “A” land measuring 0.67 (Are) together with the proportionate share in the common parts and portions with other purchasers/occupiers of “Ambika Enclave situated at R. Ehabari, Guwahati”. 11. The claim of the plaintiffs respondents arose when the defendants petitioners vide letter dated 14.12.2012 officially handed over the possession of the aforesaid flat as well as one car parking space in the ground floor along with the parking lay out as the said allotted parking space as alleged was not as per GMDA approved plan and hence the reliefs mentioned hereinabove were sought for from the civil court. 12. As per clause 6.1 referred hereinabove in the deed of agreement dated 4.3.2010, a promise was made by the defendants petitioners that they would comply with all statutory rules and regulations connected with construction of multi-storied apartment at Ambika Enclave and would keep the purchaser fully indemnified against all losses etc which may be suffered by the purchaser due to any breach and/or non compliance by the developer-cum-builder. 13. Clause 1.1(v) stipulates that the developer-cum-builder proposed to have 24 Nos of car parking in the ground floor of the building and as such they are entitled to sell the remaining car parking area after due allotment to the individual flat/units. 14. Clause 1.1. (vi) stipulates that the purchaser agreed that parking space opted for his/her exclusive use shall be understood to be together with the unit/flat and the same shall not have independent legal entity detached from the said unit of the flat. 15. From Article 2.1 it is seen that the defendants petitioners promised to accept the sale consideration of the schedule ‘C’ flat which includes one car parking space in the ground floor. The plaintiffs respondents were delivered possession of the flat along with the allotment of the car parking space and they are aggrieved on being allotted car parking space which as per them are not approved by the GMDA. On the other hand, as mentioned hereinabove, the defendants petitioners as developer-cum-builder promised to comply with all statutory rules connected with construction of the multi-storied apartment. On the other hand, as mentioned hereinabove, the defendants petitioners as developer-cum-builder promised to comply with all statutory rules connected with construction of the multi-storied apartment. The claim of plaintiffs respondents as seen from the plaint is that the defendants petitioners failed to abide by the promise that they would comply with all the mandatory rules connected with the construction of the multistoried apartments, keeping in view that the car parking space is an integral part of the Schedule-C referred hereinabove. So there is a dispute involving the stipulations made in the agreement for sale dated 4.3.2010. Under such circumstance, the arbitration clause referred hereinabove covers all disputes and differences between the parties regarding the construction or interpretation of any terms and conditions referred hereinabove contained and touching the stipulations made in the agreement for sale or determination of any liability and parties promised to refer such dispute to the arbitrator. 16. From the said arbitration clause it can very well be decided that the plaintiffs respondents raised the issue that there is a liability on the part of the defendants petitioners to allot GMDA approved parking space. In the agreement for sale there are mention of parking space and whether the same are meant to be GMDA approved or not cannot be concluded. As the arbitration clause covers leaving aside determination of any liability also the construction or interpretation of any terms and condition of the said agreement for sale, in my opinion the dispute raised before the court below is well covered by the arbitral clause referred hereinabove and as such, finding of the court below that once the sale deed is executed the arbitration clause in the deed of agreement shall have no force cannot be accepted. Considering the same I am constrained to set aside the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned court below in Title Suit No. 53/2016 thereby allowing this revision petition. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 17. Parties shall appear before the court below on 09.08.2019 upon which the learned court below shall pass an appropriate order keeping in view the observation made in this revision petition thereby adjudicating the petition u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 afresh.