1.. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 423/2009 RAVINDER KU MAR Petitioner Through: None versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANOTHER.....Respondents Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate and Mr. R.N.Dahiya, AE(M), Najafgarh Zone.. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI ORDER % 10.05.2011 Despite pass over, none appears for the petitioner. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. On 21.09.2010, when the case was taken up for hearing, one of the primary defences raised by the respondent was that the claim is barred by limitation. The respondent had also stated that the petitioner had performed only a small part of the work awarded to him. Without getting into the said issue as to whether or not the claims are Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified barred by limitation, the respondent was required to take instructions whether it is willing to make payment of the amount, that, even according to the respondent, is due and payable to the petitioner. After a few adjournments, counsel for the respondent today, on instructions, states that the respondent is willing to make payment of Rs.55,691/- to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not appeared, I am inclined to dismiss this petition. However, in case the petitioner V approaches the Executive Engineer Maintenance-I, Najafgarh Zone, the respondent shall release the aforesaid payment to the petitioner without any delay. The petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be communicated to the petitioner. VIPIN SANGHI, J MAY 10, 2011 as I