CHIEF ENGINEER AND TWO OTHERS Vs. SAGARMULL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 25.7.1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Sikkim, allowing the application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act and directing the Chief Engineer to refer the remaining disputes raised before by the petitioner to the Arbitrator.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent is a Government contractor under the Union of India. He was awarded some construction work and a contract agreement containing the arbitration clause was signed between the parties. During the progress and after completion of the work, some disputes and differences arose between the parties relating to the contract work. After a number of correspondence were exchanged between the parties, the plaintiff submitted the details of the disputes (7 items in all) vide his letter dated 27.2.1987. He further submitted another letter dated 6.10.1987 requesting for the appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the disputes and claims which has arisen between the parties as per the details included in the said letter. These details included 5 more additional items not included in the previous letter. The petitioner again sent a reminder vide letter dated 2.8.1988. Meanwhile the final bill had been prepared and further disputes had arisen. The plaintiff had also submitted a fresh claim of 4 items. The Chief Engineer ultimately appointed an Arbitrator on 3.5.1990 and referred only the seven disputes raised in the original letter dated 27.2.1987 and left aside the rest of the claims which were subsequently raised before him. Therefore, the contractor filed an application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitrator Act praying for the court to direct the Chief Engineer to refer the remaining 6 (six claims already raised by the contractor. This request was opposed by the appellants but the learned Trial Court allowed the application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner/ respondent and directed the Chief Engineer to refer the remaining disputes raised before him by the petitioner to the Arbitrator. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed and the only point pressed before me by the learned councel for the appellant is that the application under Sec. 20 was barred by time and should have been dismissed as such.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the various records of the case and considered the submissions made at the bar. As has been held in Union of India Vs. Sagarmull Agarwal, Civil 1st Appeal No. 4 of 1993 : decided on 7.6.1994 (Sikkim) between the same parties, Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act is governed by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act which provides for a limitation of 3 years from the time when the right to apply accrues. In the present case, the cause of action arose only when the Chief Engineer passed his order dated 3.5.1990 appointing an Arbitrator and referring only the 7 disputes raised by the contract or in his letter dated 27.2.1987 and thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for referring the disputes subsequently raised by him to the Arbitrator. The cause of action arose only on 3.5.1990 and the application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed on 12.11.1990 well within 3 years time. Therefore, I am of the view that the application under Sec. 20 was within the limitation period prescribed by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act which provides accrual of 3 years time from right to apply. As such I do not find any force in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 1,100 Appeal dismissed.