ORDER : t By way of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks o assail order passed by learned trial Court, whereby it referred the dispute to the arbitration after dismissing the application filed by petitioner under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,60,117/- against the defendant/respondent. The respondent after filing an application under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 148 of CPC, filed its written statement. 3. Since the plaintiff was of the view that there were vital admissions made by respondent/defendant in the written statement, it moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC praying therein that decree be passed on the basis of admissions made by the respondent/defendant in the pleadings made in the written statement and the documents annexed therewith. 4. However, the learned trial Court not only dismissed the application but thereafter shockingly referred the matter to arbitration in terms of agreement dated 1.6.2015. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed the instant petition. 5. To say the least, learned trial Court has feigned ignorance of the legal position while passing the aforesaid order. As observed above, the defendant/respondent had filed the written statement and in this way, it had created a right in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner in bringing action to have the dispute adjudicated by the Court. 6. It is more than two decades back that this legal position was settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and others versus P.V.G. Raju(died) and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1886, wherein it was held as follows: “The conditions which are required to be satisfied under sub-sections( 1) and (2) of Section 8 before the Court can exercise its powers are: (1) there is an arbitration agreement; (2) a party to the agreement brings an action in the Court against the other party; (3) subject matter of the arbitration agreement; (4) the other party moves the Court for referring the parties to arbitration before it submits his first statement on the substance of the dispute. This last provision creates a right in the person bringing the action to have the dispute adjudicated by Court, once the other party has submitted his first statement of defence. This last provision creates a right in the person bringing the action to have the dispute adjudicated by Court, once the other party has submitted his first statement of defence. But if the party, who wants the matter to be referred to arbitration applies to the Court after submission of his statement and the party who has brought the action does not object, as is the case before us, there is no bar on the Court referring the parties to arbitration.” 7. The legal position has not only been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, but followed by this Court as is duty bound in various judgments. A reference can conveniently be made to judgments rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in “Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s Continental Joint Venture”, decided on 27.8.2008 and by learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 434 of 2012 in Civil Suit No. 73 of 2012, titled as “M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. Versus M/s Vishwakarma Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd and another, decided on 19.12.2012. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 30.3.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. 7, Shimla in Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC in case No. 344 of 2019 is quashed and set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 9. Parties to appear before learned trial Court on 3.6.2022.