Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is filed by the appellant -applicant under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') challenging the order dated 16.7.97 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 4, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 47/96, whereby the court below has dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Section 20 of the said Act. In the instant case it appears that the appellant and the respondents had entered into an agreement, whereby the appellant was awarded the contract for dismantling the overhead L.T. Lines at Agra Fort Eidgah, Agra Cant., as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It further appears that some disputes had arisen between the parties and the appellant had requested the respondents to appoint the Arbitrator for resolving the disputes, however the respondents having failed to do so, the appellant had filed an application before the court below seeking appointment of Arbitrator under Section 20 of the said Act. The said application was dismissed by the court below vide the impugned order on the ground that the said application was filed beyond the period prescribed in the agreement.
(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Suresh Sahni, for the appellant that the court below has failed to appreciate that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would be applicable for the purpose of filing application under Section 20 of the said Act. The court does not find any substance in the said submission of Mr. Sahni. There being specific Condition No. 64 in the agreement to the effect that in the event of any dispute or difference between the parties, the contractor may, within 180 days of his presenting the final claim of disputes matters, demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. In the instant case, the appellant -contractor had not demanded the arbitration within the prescribed time limit of 180 days as contemplated under the Condition No. 64 of the agreement. The court below after taking into consideration the various legal positions settled by the Apex Court as well as by this court had dismissed the application vide the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. The learned counsel Mr. Sahni for the appellant has failed to point out any legal position contrary to the impugned order passed by the court below. The court therefore does not find any substance in the present appeal. The appeal therefore, is dismissed.;