PRAFULLA KUMAR SINGH DEO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate judge, Baripada, refusing to appoint an arbitrator* Under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act ('Act for short).

(2.) THE petitioner had entered into Agreement No. 2/ F2 of .1974 -75 with opposite party No. 2 for executing the work of widening the pavements of N. H. No. 6 to 7 -M for the value of Rs. 4,79,563.35. Although the work was completed, opposite party No 2 did not make correct measurements and did not take into account the petitioner's claim for, additional work done, but on 27 -7 -1978 the final bill was paid with an understanding that the disputed claim would be settled later. On 28 -8 -1978 opposite party No 2 refused to entertain the petitioner's claim on technical grounds. On 25 -7 -1981 the petitioner served a notice Under Section 8(1) of the Act on opposite party No. 3 to appoint an Arbirator according to Clause 23 of the agreement. But as an Arbitrator was not appointed, the petitioner filed a petition Under Section 8(2) in the learned Court below to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes relating to Agreement No. 2/F2 of 1974 -75 of 4N. H. Division, Baripada.

(3.) TWO points were raised before the learned Subordinate judge. First, no specific claim having been raised by the petitioner, the petition, Under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable and, second, the petition Under Section 8(2) was barred by limitation under Art.' 137 of the Limitation Act. With regard to the first point, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner had raised claim arising out of the works contract. He further held that the petition Under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, he rejected the petition and refused to appoint an Arbitrator,