THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Civil Revision Petition No.6455 of 2005 Order: The petitioners, who are the respondents representing Union of India (for short ‘the Department’), filed this revision under Section 83 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 16.06.2004, passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in allowing the application at the instance of the respondent herein purportedly filed under Sections 8 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and appointing one Sri A.J.Kumareshan, Retired Chief Surveyor of Works, as Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Briefly stated the facts are that in pursuance of a contract entered into between the parties on 18.12.1987, certain disputes have arisen between them. Hence, there are claims and counter claims on both the sides and ultimately in view of the said disputes, the petitioners have appointed the Arbitrator. However, according to the respondent herein, even though such appointments were made, the same being frequently changed and there is no serious attempt on the part of the said Arbitrators so appointed to settle the disputes and one after the other are getting out of the office and the responsibility, and therefore, it is more appropriate to appoint an Arbitrator by the Court afresh. Admittedly, the Court below, taking into consideration the material on record and especially in view of the fact that the allegations have been made against the Arbitrators who have been appointed by the Department, thought that it would be appropriate to appoint an Arbitrator afresh and hence, appointed Sri A.J.Kumareshan, Retired Chief Surveyor of Works, as Arbitrator. Having considered the submissions made on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not necessary to delve into on merits. However the fact remains that in pursuance of the contract, there are claims and counter claims between the parties. Initially, one Brig.J.Dixit was appointed as Arbitrator, who resigned. Later on, another Arbitrator was appointed, who also subsequently resigned. Admittedly, the Department has appointed more than one Arbitrator and as could be seen from the pleadings of the respondent before the Court below, at the earlier point of time, one Sri S.G.Mahajan, was appointed as Arbitrator; thereafter in his place one Brig.S.D.Sohani, followed by Brig.G.R.Sud and ultimately, Brig.J.Dixit. Thus, there is ample evidence to show that the entire exercise of the Department is found to be futile and no progress is being shown in the Arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the Court below has rightly appointed the Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. In view of the finding of fact arrived at and also the fact that the Department is unsuccessful in appointing Arbitrator on its own, I do not find any ground to come to a different conclusion arrived at by the Court below. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel on either side submitted that even the Arbitrator, who has been appointed by the Court below, namely, Sri A.J.Kumareshan, died. In view of the same, fresh appointment needs to be made. Accordingly, Sri Justice Vaman Rao, Retired Judge of this Court, R/o Flat No.202 and 203, H.No.3-4-874/1/9, Mahasiva Apartments, Barkathpura, Hyderabad is appointed as Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. No costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Date:19.08.2010 VGB