ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are against the High Courts order in civil revisions arising out of the applications made by the respondent under Section 8 of the f Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the civil court was not willing to act as an arbitrator and that the appellant was not agreeable to the arbitration.

3. The claim of the respondent was admittedly above the sum of Rs 50,000. The question is whether GOMs No. 430 dated 24-10-1983 (Annexure A) at pp. 1 to 4 of the paper-books contains the arbitration 9 agreement for adjudication of claims up to Rs 50,000 by arbitration. The respondents contention is that according to the terms of that GOMs any dispute involving a claim above Rs 50,000 is to be adjudicated by the Judge of the court of competent jurisdiction acting as the arbitrator. According to the respondent, it is GOMs No. 430 dated 24-10-1983 alone which is material for the purpose since the subsequent GOMs No. 160 dated 1-6-1987 h is not mentioned in the agreement between the parties, wherein a clarification the earlier GOMs has been made. It is on this basis that the respondent aims adjudication of his claim by arbitrat