H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) (for self and for V. K. Mehrotra, J.) The State of Uttar Pradesh has come up in appeal against an order dated 25-4-1978 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Dehradun, whereby he allowed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, filed by the respondent, and directed that both the parties should intimate the name of two arbitrators, one to be nominated by each of them, and that the arbitrators so nominated should select an umpire within 40 days of the order.
(2.) THE plaintiff Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. filed an application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 claiming that there was an arbitration clause in the contract agreement entered into between the parties, according to which the dispute between them had to be resolved by arbitration. It accordingly, prayed that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration in accordance with arbitration clause in the agreement. The application was contested by the defendant on a number of grounds. Ultimately, the trial court came to the conclusion that dispute between the parties should, in accordance with the arbitration clause in the agreement be referred to arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the two parties. It accordingly by the order under appeal directed the parties to intimate the names of arbitrators, who were to select an Umpire within the time mentioned in the order. The order under appeal merely specifies that the dispute between the parties has to be resolved by arbitration and calls upon the parties to nominate their respective arbitrators. Actually, no order referring the dispute to the arbitrators nominated by the parties, has been made so far. Being aggrieved, the defendant has come up in appeal and contends that the dispute in this case cannot be referred to arbitration as claimed by the plaintiff.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal at this stage.;