IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 261 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.12.2010. Reliance Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. & others …Petitioners. Versus Surinder Chauhan …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17.6.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.4, Shimla whereby he rejected the application filed by the petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the defendants) for referring the dispute to arbitration. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Shimla for recovery of Rs.1,08,000/- alongwith future interest on the ground that property of the plaintiff had been used by the defendants for installation of BTS tower and as per the agreement arrived at between the parties the defendants were liable to pay 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Rs.4,500/- per month as rent/lease money for the use of the property. Alongwith the suit the copy of the lease agreement was also filed. The defendants filed an application under Section 8 praying that in terms of Section 7(e) of the agreement all disputes arising out of the agreement had to be referred to arbitration. Clause 7(e) reads as follows:- “It is hereby expressly agreed that if at any time there shall arise any dispute, doubt or difference or question with regard to interpretation of this agreement or in respect of the rights, duties and the liabilities of the parties thereto arising out of these present then every dispute doubt difference or question shall be referred to arbitration as per the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 and the rules framed there under. Two arbitrators are to be appointed one by each of the party and third to be appointed by the said two arbitrators. The decision of the arbitrators shall be final and binding to the parties to this deed. The place of arbitration will be___________ and the language of the arbitration proceedings shall be English.” 3. The learned trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that the agreement was not signed by the second party i.e. the petitioners herein. In fact, the plaintiff himself filed the original agreement and I have perused the same from the record of the case which clearly shows that the agreement was signed by both sides. The only ambiguity is that the place of arbitration has been left blank. Once the place of arbitration is left blank but admittedly 3 agreement was signed at Shimla the only inference which can be drawn is that the arbitration shall be conducted at Shimla. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The order of the learned trial Court is set-aside. The application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is allowed and the parties can approach the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement. The suit before the learned trial Court shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. 28th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge