ORDER

1.These special leave petitions are against an order dated 19-2-2004.

2.We have heard Mr V.V. Lalit, learned counsel at great length.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondents claimed arbitration and appointed an arbitrator. The petitioners claimed that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The question whether there was an arbitration agreement was raised before the arbitrator by the petitioners. As the answer to this question was dependent on whether or not the petitioners had signed the documents which purportedly contained the arbitration clause, the petitioners applied that the documents be examined by a handwriting expert. The arbitrator allowed this application and called upon both the parties to give names of handwriting experts. The respondents supplied the names of handwriting experts. The petitioners did not supply any name. The arbitrator appointed a handwriting expert out of the list supplied by the respondents. The handwriting expert gave two reports.

4. On 2-7-2003 the petitioners applied that the reports be set aside and

another handwriting expert be appointed. The arbitrator rejected that application. Thereafter, the arbitrator g