The civil revision petition is filed against an order made in a.p.No.169 of 1994 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by the unsuccessful petitioner.

2. The said O.P. was filed under Sections 3, 5, 11 and 12 read with Sections 8 and 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to remove the second respondent-Managing Director, AP.S.S.D.C. Ltd., as arbitrator in respect of the works "Distribution of seeds for Prakasam District for the period from 01.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 under Lr.No. SSDC/ Markt/ SPSC/92-93, dated 23.5.1992 of the first respondent corporation" and to appoint anyone of the four persons named in the petition as arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute raised by the parties and to award costs. The four persons named in the said O.P. are as hereunder:

1. Sri Justice K. Madhava Reddy, retired Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

2. Sri Justice C. Kondaiah,. retired Chief Justice of AP. High Court.

3. Sri Justice K. Punnayya, retired Judge, High Court of AP.

4. Sri Justice P. Rama Rao, retired Judge, High Court of AP.

3. The said a.p. was resisted oy second respondent who filed counter on his behalf and also on behalf of first respondent.

4. The learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, after recording reasons, by order dated 15t day of November 2002 appreciating Exs.A-1 to A-5, Exs.B-1 to B-12 marked by the parties, ultimately came to a conclusion that there was no agreement between the parties for referring the matter to the arbitration and accordingly dismissed the a.p. with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

5. Sri K. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing revision petitioner would maintain that pursuant to Ex. B-1 and the terms and conditions, the revision petitioner had deposited a sum of RS.5.00 lakhs as security deposit and also furnished bank guarantee for a sum of RS.5.00 lakhs and on complying with the same, the first respondent suppfied necessary seeds for the purpose of distribution and, thus, the petitioner had distributed the seeds to various third party agencies. The learned counsel also would submit that in the light of the facts and circumstances there exists a valid contract between the petitioner and the respondents though formal agreement was not engrossed on non-judicial stamp paper. The learned counsel also pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also certain findings recorded by the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and would maintain that having mage certain observations in favour of the petitioner ultimately dismissing the O.P., that too, relying on a decision delivered under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the present Act, when the present dispute relates to the repealed Act, the Arbitration Act, 1940 cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing respondents had taken this Court through the contents of EX.A-1 and Ex. B-1 and would maintain that when there is no written contract and when it was agreed between the parties that in pursuance of initial acceptance a real agreement had been entered into. Unless and until such agreement had been entered into by the parties it cannot be said that there is a conclusion in the contract and in view of the same the reasons recorded by the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, cannot be found fault and the civil revision petition to be dismissed.

7. Heard the counsel, perused the findings recorded by the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.169 of 1994.

8. The O.P. was filed by the petitioner for the reliefs already referred to supra. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent corporation appointed the petitioner as distributor of seeds for Prakasam District for one year from 01.4.1992 to 31.3.1993. It is also his case that