IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7895 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 27, 2011. Punjab Agri Food Parks Ltd. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus M/s Frick India Ltd. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. D.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harnek Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 31.05.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Chandigarh in Civil Suit No.1862 of 21.11.2007, referring the dispute to Arbitrator as per agreement between the parties. CR No.7895 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, admittedly respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of `4,98,629/- against the present petitioner in which petitioner moved an application for staying the proceedings and for referring the dispute to Arbitration as per agreement between the parties. Request of petitioner was accepted by learned trial Court and the dispute was ordered to be referred to Arbitrator vide impugned order dated 31.05.2010. It is pertinent to reproduce relevant clause 16 of the agreement, which reads as under:- “16. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION The parties hereto agreed that any dispute or difference arising out of the terms of this agreement or breach thereof, or touching upon the agreement or interpretation thereof shall be referred to Arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator to be nominated by company. The provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules made thereunder including any statutory modification or amendment thereto, shall apply. The arbitration shall be held at Chandigarh and proceedings shall be held in the English language only. The award passed by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties and subject to no appeal.” A very perusal of aforementioned clause shows that the dispute is to be referred to arbitration by Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Company. However, learned trial Court while referring the matter to 2 CR No.7895 of 2010 Arbitrator has mentioned that Arbitrator was to be appointed by consent of both the parties. There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is not in accordance with para 16 of the agreement executed between the parties as reproduced above. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that the dispute shall be referred to arbitration by Sole Arbitrator to be nominated by the petitioner- company as per agreement between the parties. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 27, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3