( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the order dated 18-4-2006 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration petition No. 351 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the said arbitration petition filed by the appellants/petitioners.

( 2 ) THE impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that though specific grounds as regards the lack of jurisdiction to the arbitrator to deal with the dispute in question, absence of any settlement of claim by the respondents/claimants and failure to comply with the principles of natural justice by the learned arbitrator were specifically raised and further that the counsel for the appellants was never instructed to give up or concede on any of those grounds, the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the petition without addressing to the said issues and without considering the said grounds. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the impugned order is contrary to the case put forth by the appellants and in any case since the point of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, irrespective of the fact whether the same was argued by the learned Advocate for the appellants or not, since it was specifically raised in the petition, the learned single Judge ought to have considered and decided the said issue.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection is sought to be raised on behalf of the respondents about the non-maintainability of the appeal in as much as that the appellants had earlier preferred Appeal No. 690 of 2006 against the impugned order but the same was withdrawn without reserving any liberty to file a fresh appeal against the impugned order and, therefore, the right to appeal having been abandoned without any reservation, the appellants are not entitled to file yet another appeal against which the appeal filed earlier by the appellants was withdrawn. As regards the merits of the case, it is the contention on behalf of the respondents that there was total inaction and reluctance on the part of the appellants to render assistance to the arbitrator in deciding the issue of jurisdiction and apart from merely making submission about the absence of jurisdiction, the appellants did not even bother to pursue the said objection when the matter was fixed for hearing on the said issue and therefore based on the assessment of the materials on record, the learned arbitrator clearly arrived at the finding about the existence of jurisdiction to the arbitrator to deal and decide on the dispute between the parties. In any case, the impugned order apparently discloses that the appellants had sought to challenge the award only on two grounds which were not raised in the arbitration petition and, therefore, the learned single Judge has refused to interfere on those grounds and further that no other ground was canvassed before the learned single Judge. That being the clear finding recorded in the impugned order, and there being no material on record to suggest the said finding to be contrary to the records, it is not permissible for the appellants to contend that the court should have considered the said issues while deciding the matter.

( 4 ) AS regards the preliminary objection sought to be raised on behalf of the respondents, it is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the Appeal no. 690 of 2006 was an incompetent appeal in as much as that the said appeal was filed without the payment of the necessary Court fee and in any case, the withdrawal thereof was not with the intention to give up the right to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal but it was merely to facilitate the appellants to pursue the remedy of review before challenging the impugned order by way of an appeal and the same is also apparent from the order dated 22-9-2006, which was passed in Appeal no. 690 of 2006 while allowing the appellants to withdraw the said appeal. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of