ORDER : 1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as the Code) against order dated 24.09.2022, (Annexure P/1) passed in RCS-A No. 5255/2020 by the learned 7th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore, District Indore (MP), whereby an application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) has filed a civil suit in the trial Court seeking the following relief: ^^lgk;rk% oknh bl ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuEukuqlkj lgk;rk pkgrk gS fd%& ¼1½ ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tk,s fd okn pj.k d 2¼nks½ esa of.kZr leLr {ks= esa dscy ds lapkyu dk O;olk; djus gsrq dsoy oknh gh ,dek= vf/kd`r O;fDr gSA ,oa Áfroknh dk mDr {ks=ksa esa fdlh Ádkj dk dscy O;olk; djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA ¼2½ ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tk, fd Áfroknh dks oknh ds xzkgdksa ls dscy fdjk;k olwyh dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ÁkIr ugha gSA ¼3½ Áfroknh dks mlds }kjk fd;s tk jgs gS voS/kkfud d`R;ksa ls rqjUr jksdk tk,sA ¼4½ bl okn dk lEiw.kZ O;; oknh dks Áfroknh ls ,d eq’r fnyok;k tkosA ¼5½ vU; lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s oknh dks fnyokbZ tkosA** 3. In the aforesaid suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was filed by the petitioner/defendant stating that the dispute between the parties is between the two Service Providers and as per the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (herein after referred to as the Act), the suit is barred before the trial Court u/s. 27 of the Act, as the dispute can only be decided by the Authority empowered under the Act. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the trial Court holding that the suit is not barred, as no question of broadcasting is involved in the suit. 4. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 27 as also Section 14 of the Act and it is submitted that “any dispute” between two Cable Operators has to be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal only i.e. Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside. 5. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 27 as also Section 14 of the Act and it is submitted that “any dispute” between two Cable Operators has to be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal only i.e. Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside. 5. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, as there is no issue of broadcasting involved in the present suit and the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly held in the civil suit the dispute between the parties is in respect of commercial area. Thus, it is submitted that the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard. On due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the documents filed on record, it is found that so far as the relief sought by the plaintiff (respondent) in the civil suit is concerned, for the convenience, the same is once again reproduced as under: ^^lgk;rk% oknh bl ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuEukuqlkj lgk;rk pkgrk gS fd%& ¼1½ ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tk,s fd okn pj.k d 2¼nks½ esa of.kZr leLr {ks= esa dscy ds lapkyu dk O;olk; djus gsrq dsoy oknh gh ,dek= vf/kd`r O;fDr gSA ,oa Áfroknh dk mDr {ks=ksa esa fdlh Ádkj dk dscy O;olk; djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA ¼2½ ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tk, fd Áfroknh dks oknh ds xzkgdksa ls dscy fdjk;k olwyh dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ÁkIr ugha gSA ¼3½ Áfroknh dks mlds }kjk fd;s tk jgs gS voS/kkfud d`R;ksa ls rqjUr jksdk tk,sA ¼4½ bl okn dk lEiw.kZ O;; oknh dks Áfroknh ls ,d eq’r fnyok;k tkosA ¼5½ vU; lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s oknh dks fnyokbZ tkosA** 7. So far as Sections 14 and 27 of the Act are concerned, the same read, as under: “14. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal - The Central Government shall, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to: (a) adjudicate any dispute: (i) between a licensor and a licensee. (ii) between two or more service providers. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal - The Central Government shall, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to: (a) adjudicate any dispute: (i) between a licensor and a licensee. (ii) between two or more service providers. (iii) between a service provider and a group of consumers: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in respect of matters relating to: (A) the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969). (B) the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986). (C) the dispute between telegraph authority and any other person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885). (b) hear and dispose of appeal against any direction, decision or order of the Authority under this Act. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 27. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine.” (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of Section 14 of the Act clearly reveals that “only the Appellate Tribunal under the Act can adjudicate any dispute between the two or more service provides, whereas Section 27 of the Act provides that, “No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine.” 8. In view of the aforesaid legal provisions, and the fact that the both the parties in the present civil suit are the Service Providers, and have a dispute in respect of their area of operation, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act, which provides for adjudication of any dispute between two or more service providers and coupled with Section 27 of the Act, it is apparent that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute. 9. 9. In view of the same, the present petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 24.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the civil suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) is hereby dismissed, on account of its non-maintainability. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff (respondent herein) shall be free to take recourse of the remedy, as is available to him under the Act. And, also that this Court has not reflected upon the merits of the case. 10. With the aforesaid direction and observation, Civil Revision No. 739/2022 stands allowed and disposed of. 11. All the other pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.