(1) OUT of these four appeals, two appeals have been preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other two appeals have been preferred by the private claimants. In the appeals filed by the State, the claimants made an application before the Sub-ordinate Judge for appointing an Arbitrator, the claim being more than 50,000.00 in terms of G.O. Ms. 430.

(2) THE learned Sub-ordinate Judge appointed an Arbitrator which was assailed by the State in the High court contending inter alia, that even under G.O. Ms. 430 the claim above Rs. 50,000.00 is required to be decided upon by filing a Suit and not by Arbitrator. The High court however rejected the said contention hence the present appeals.

(3) IN the appeals filed by the claimants the subordinate Judge having appointed, Arbitrator, the claim being more than Rs. 50,000.00. The State of A. P. assailed the said appointment of Arbitrator and the High court, following the judgment of this court in Vishakapatnam Urban Development Authority v. V. Narayana Raju [1995 (2 SCALE 234], set aside the order of appointment of Arbitrator by the Subordinate Judge. Hence, the claimants are in appeal. (sic) making when these four