JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (oral) 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: - “It is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition may very kindly be allowed and impugned orders Annexure P-5 dated 06.07.2017 and Annexure P-6 dated 24.07.2017 may very kindly be quashed. Further the petitioners humbly pray that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC may kindly be ordered to be allowed or in alternative the Ld. Court below may be directed to defend the case by filing the written statement, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent herein, has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the present petitioners, which is pending adjudication. During the pendency of this Civil Suit, the petitioners herein, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. It was mentioned in the application that in terms of Clause-13 of the agreement, which stood entered into between the parties, as it was envisaged that in case of any dispute, the matter is to be refixed to the decision of the Chief Executive Officer of petitioner No.1 herein, and the same shall be treated as reference in terms of the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940, therefore, the suit filed was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected. 3. This application stands dismissed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirmaur District, at Nahan, vide order dated 06.07.2017, which stands assailed before this Court. A perusal of order passed by the learned Court below, demonstrates that after assigning reasons, the application stood dismissed by the learned Court below. It was observed by the learned Court that it was settled principle of law that where two or more Courts have jurisdiction and if the parties by agreement have chosen one Court to the exclusion of the other, only the chosen Court then in terms of agreement will have the jurisdiction to try, but this did not mean that having arbitration clause ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, especially when the party had approached the Arbitrator and no response was received from the Arbitrator. Learned Court below also held that despite arbitration clause being there, the Civil Court was not precluded from adjudicating upon a Civil Suit, especially when the facts of the case demonstrate that the plaintiff had already approached the Arbitrator and nothing was done by the Arbitrator. With these reasonings, learned Court below dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It is a matter of record that Civil Suit was instituted in the year, 2016, yet, no written statement was filed by the defendants. Now, on 6th July, 2017, while dismissing the application filed by the present petitioners, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned Trial Court as a matter of indulgence, ordered the matter to be listed on 24.07.2017, and granted another opportunity to the defendants to file written statement. It was made clear vide order dated 06.07.2017 that no further opportunity will be granted to the defendants for the purpose of filing written statement. However, as no written statement was filed by the defendants, accordingly, vide order dated 24.07.2017, the defence of the defendants was struck off by the learned Court below. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition assailing both the orders dated 06.07.2017, vide which the learned Court below has dismissed the application, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as order dated 24.07.2017, vide which defence of the defendants was struck off. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders. 7. In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the order, which has been passed by the learned Court below while dismissing the application of the present petitioners filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This I say for the reason that the course which has to be adopted by a party, i.e., by the defendants, in case the suit filed against them pertain to an issue qua which there is arbitration clause, is that they have to move appropriate application before the Court for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. This, admittedly, has not been done by the present petitioners in the Civil Suit. To the contrary, they chose to file an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This, admittedly, has not been done by the present petitioners in the Civil Suit. To the contrary, they chose to file an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A perusal of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, demonstrates that this order contemplates that the plaint shall be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action; or whereby the relief claimed is undervalued and correction in valuation is not done despite being time granted by the Court, or where the relief claimed, is properly valued, but the plaint is insufficiently stamped and plaintiff on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp papers within a time fixed by the Court, fails to do so; or where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law etc. 8. A perusal of the plaint, which stands appended with this petition, demonstrates that it cannot be said that the same does not disclose any cause of action. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that plaint was liable to be rejected either because it was undervalued or the same was accompanied by insufficient stamp papers. In my considered view, filing of a plaint on a cause, qua which there is an arbitration clause, also per se does not means that plaint is barred by any law. This I say for the reason, as already mentioned herein-above, that if in a lis which otherwise is governed by an arbitration clause, the defendants do not raise this plea at the first available opportunity, then the principle of estoppel comes into play and subsequently, the defendants cannot even take this plea before the learned Civil Court. Therefore, filing of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint was totally misconceived and the learned Court below rightly rejected the same. 9. Coming to the order, vide which defence of the defendants stood struck off, in my considered view, the same also suffers from no infirmity. When learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners herein, vide order dated 06.07.2017, it granted another opportunity to the defendants to file their written statement. 9. Coming to the order, vide which defence of the defendants stood struck off, in my considered view, the same also suffers from no infirmity. When learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners herein, vide order dated 06.07.2017, it granted another opportunity to the defendants to file their written statement. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could not justify as to why despite opportunity having been granted, no written statement was filed by the defendants. 10. Another point which this Court intends to stress at this stage to highlight the callous attitude with which the proceedings are being conducted by the petitioners is that the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 06.07.2017, dismissing the application filed by them, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and subsequent order dated 24.07.2017, vide which defence of the defendants was struck off, were assailed before this Court by way of this petition on 9th May, 2018, i.e., almost ten months after the impugned orders were passed. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, this petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.