Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN these arbitration applications the Petitioner is seeking appointment of arbitrator under Sub -clause 4 of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. All these matters are decided together in view of the fact that the petitions have a common fact. The fact of the first case is taken into consideration as the facts of other cases are also similar. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that an agreement was executed between the parties on 15.3.1977. In the agreement, the Petitioner was supposed to complete the work within nine months. However, according to the Petitioner, the work was completed in the year 1996. The Petitioner then tried to get the matter settled but he could not get it. Hence, in the year 1996 he submitted an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act which was dismissed by the Civil Court vide order dated 30.4.2004 on the ground that the petition submitted under Old Act was not maintainable. Then, the Petitioner served a notice upon the Respondent in 2009 i.e. on 20.4.2009 and now has approached this Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
(3.) FROM the facts stated above, it is clear that it is a state claim which has already become barred by time as admitted in the facts stated in the petition itself and lastly the Civil Court also dismissed the petition of the Petitioner filed under the Old Act of 1940 as would appear from the order dated 3.04.2004 and it is also admitted that, thereafter, the Petitioner served a notice upon the Respondent for appointment of arbitrator in the year 2009 i.e. after five years. Hence, it was a state claim, barred by time also and no dispute survived at the time of issuance of notice by the Petitioner to the Respondent.;