ORDER : [Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.05 of 2022 in O.S.No.2834 of 2022 on the file of the XX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai and consequently restore the same.] 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.05 of 2022 in O.S.No.2834 of 2022 on the file of the XX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai and consequently, restore the same. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, instituted a suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.5 of 2022 under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. 3. The trial Court adjudicated the issues and made a finding as follows: “10. Once there is an agreement between the parties to refer the disputes or differences arising out of the agreement to arbitration, and in case either party, ignoring the terms of the agreement, approaches the civil court and the other party, in terms of the Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration before the first statement on the substance of the dispute is filed, in view of the peremptory language of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the agreement, as held by this Court in P.Anand Gajapathi Raju and others v. P.V.G.Raju (Dead) and others, [ (2000) 4 SCC 539 ]”. 4. When there is an agreement between the parties for Arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, then the suit is not entertainable and accordingly, the trial Court allowed the Interlocutory Application, enabling the parties to resolve the disputes through Arbitration. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a submission that there is no valid Arbitration agreement exists under Section 8 of the Act and therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is perverse. The hypothecation-cum-loan agreement is unilateral in nature. The power to appoint an Arbitrator vests with the respondents herein and they are not appointing the Arbitrators and thus, the revision petitioner is deprived of her opportunity even for adjudication of issues. 6. The hypothecation-cum-loan agreement is unilateral in nature. The power to appoint an Arbitrator vests with the respondents herein and they are not appointing the Arbitrators and thus, the revision petitioner is deprived of her opportunity even for adjudication of issues. 6. Such an argument deserves no merit consideration, in view of the fact that the revision petitioner admittedly signed the hypothecation-cum-loan agreement and thus, the terms and conditions stipulated are binding on the parties. That apart, the trial court passed an order on 12.12.2022 and immediately, the revision petitioner preferred a revision before this Court. Thus, the said ground has no relevancy with reference to the time gap noticed. Since the Court passed an order, directing the parties to resolve the issues through Arbitration, the respondents shall appoint an Arbitrator and accordingly, adjudicate the disputes on merits and in accordance with law. 7. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.217 of 2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.