Civil suit election bars later arbitration reference for the same dispute where the suit was pursued to dismissal.

A party that elected to pursue the same dispute through a civil suit and allowed that suit to proceed to dismissal could not later invoke the arbitration clause under Section 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act for the same matter. The High Court noted that civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC is preserved unless expressly barred, and the mere existence of an arbitration agreement does not automatically exclude that jurisdiction. On those facts, the Section 20 application was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act was maintainable after the appellant had already instituted a civil suit on the same subject-matter and allowed the suit to proceed to dismissal.

Analysis: A party who elects to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court, files a regular suit on the same averments, and contests the matter without pursuing the arbitration clause cannot later seek to enforce that clause against the other side in respect of the same dispute. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure preserves civil court jurisdiction unless barred, and the existence of an arbitration agreement does not automatically oust that jurisdiction. The reasoning also distinguished the authorities cited, as they involved materially different situations, including cases where a suit was withdrawn to enable arbitration or where the dispute did not involve a pending or dismissed suit in the same manner.

Conclusion: The application under Section 20 was not maintainable on the facts, and the dismissal of the petition was .

Ratio Decidendi: A party that has submitted the same dispute to the civil court and allowed that suit to be prosecuted cannot subsequently invoke the arbitration clause under Section 20 for the same matter.

---