DATTATRAYA Vs. AMIRKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision arises out of an application of section 20 Arbitration Act. The applicant in the High Court have to construct a house at Mohalla Balwantganj Khargone. He entered into an agreement with non -applicant to construct the same. The terms were settled. A dispute arose regarding the construction as well as the payment. The contractor Amirkhan, the non -applicant in this case made an application under S. 20 Arbitration Act alleging that there was an agreement on 18 -5 -56 and the original was in possession of the applicant. He prayed that Dattatraya be ordered to file the agreement to get the dispute between the parties settled by the arbitrators appointed in the deed.

(2.) THE allegations are that after the work started as per plan Dattatraya made changes in the plan and increased the work and the area over which the building was to constructed. This caused delay in construction and additional expenses to the contractor. Amirkhan alleged that it was settled in the agreement that if any dispute arise in the terms and conditions of the agreement the matter would be settled by certain named arbitrators.

(3.) THE applicant's main contention is that there has been no written agreement for referring the matter to the arbitrators and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order to file an agreement under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. He also contended that unless the defendant admits that there is an agreement and such a writing is produced before the Court, the Court will have no jurisdiction to pass the order.