Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- Special leave granted. The appeal is disposed of by the judgment hereunder.

2. It appears that on or about 18th September, 1969, four agreements were entered into between M/s. L. K. Ahuja & Co. and Union of India represented by the Executive Engineer, Northern Railway, Allahabad, for the construction of certain quarters. It was followed by supplementary agreement entered into sometime in 1972. It is stated that all the four contracts were executed and completed by the first respondent on diverse dates. The last one was on 30th May, 1971. Between 29th May, 1972 to 19th June, 1972, the respondent accepted the four final bills and gave no claim declaration in respect of the four contracts. The respondent wrote a letter to the Additional Chief Engineer, R.E.N.R. Allahabad, stating that Rs. 1,91,137/- were due on account of the work executed and requested him to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. On 4th June, 1976 a reply was sent to the above letter stating that there was no dispute between the parties and, hence, no question of appointment of any Arbitrator arose. On 13th December, 1976, an application was filed by the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act). That application was dismissed on 10th February, 1978 as being barred by limitation. There was an appeal from the said decision to the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court by its impugned judgment and Order dated 14th August, 1986 allowed the appeal. Hence, this appeal.

3. The sole question, involved in this appeal, is whether the High Court was right in dismissing the application. In matters of this nature, the main question is whether the application under S. 20 was within time. Though there was some doubt before but now it is well-settled in view of the decision of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P.K.K. Amsom and Besom, Kerala, (1977) 1 SCR 996 that Article 137 would apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a Civil; Court. The words "any other application" this Court held under Article 137, cannot be read on the principle of ejusdem generis to be applications under the Civil Procedure Code other than those mentioned in part I of the third division.

4. The aforesaid view has to be harmonised with the view of this Court in Wazirchand Mahajan v. Union of India, (1967) 1 SCR 303. There this Court found that the second appellant had purchased from the Himachal Pradesh Government the right to extract and collect certain medicinal herbs from the forests of Chamba District. The period of agreement was one year from September 1, 1960. Under an arbitration clause in the agreement all dispute between the parties were to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi District Himachal Pradesh. The second appellant transferred all his rights under the agreement to the first appellant with the consent of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Disputes arose between the parties in October, 1950. On May 30, 1952 the appellants addressed a letter to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh requiring that officer to submit the matters in difference to the arbitration of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi Distt. By a letter dated June 23, 1952, the Chief Conservator declined to agree to a reference contending that the matters desired to be referred were outside the arbitration clause. On June 22, 1955 the appellants applied to the District Court of Chamba for an order that the agreement be filed in Court and the disputes between them and the State be referred to the sole arbitration of the Deputy Commissioner of Mandi Distt. The State of Himachal Pradesh contended, inter alia that the application for filing the arbitration agreement was barred by law of limitation as the right to apply if any arose in 1950 and not in June, 1952 as alleged. The Court of First Instance held in favour of the