A single judge has the jurisdiction to entertain applications under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to determine whether an arbitrator should be appointed in terms of section 11 and thereafter placing the matter before the Chief Justice to name the arbitrator if the question is decided in favor of the applicant.

( 1 ) THIS appeal involves the question of the jurisdiction of a single judge, who has been given the determination to hear and dispose of arbitration matters, to entertain applications under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act.)

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the question are briefly stated. The respondent does the business of rendering radio paging services. It procures pagers from the manufactures and appoints distributors to sell or lease the pager units to the consumers. According to the appellant the respondent was one such distributor and that in terms of the agreements between the resondent and the appellant, the respondent was to pay lease rent to the appellant. It is the appellant's case that lease rent of several lakhs of rupees fell due and payable by the respondent to the appellant.

( 3 ) IN September 1996 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant in (T. S. No. 361 of 1996) before the Second Munsiff at Alipore praying for cancellation of the lease agreements between the respondent and the appellant.

( 4 ) THERE is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant filed an application under section 9 of the Act in the High Court for interim relief. The interim application has been disposed of.

( 5 ) THE appellant appointed a Senior Advocate as sole arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Clause on 19. 5. 97 and called upon the respondent to concur in the appointment. The respondent refused.

( 6 ) IN March 1998 the appellant filed an application under section 11 of the Act in which it prayed for" (A) An arbitrator be appointed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Hon'ble Court at Calcutta in terms of the arbitration clause contained of the agreements dated 31. 01. 96, 28. 02. 96 and 30. 03. 96. (b) Arbitrator be directed to enter upon the reference within such time as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct and to make and publish his award also within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (c) Such further or other order to orders be passed as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. "

( 7 ) THE appellant also filed an application under section 8 of the Act before the Second Munsif at Alipore in TS No. 3612 of 1992 for referring the subject matter of the suit to arbitration.

( 8 ) THE application under section 11 was taken up for hearing. The learned Judge passed the following order on 15th July 1998 :"it appears that an application under sectiion 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been pending before the learned second Munsif at Alipore being T. S. No. 362 of 1996. An application has also been made before this court by the petitioner under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for reference of the disputes which have arisen between the parties to the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected that the learned Second Munsif at Alipore shall dispose of the said application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 forthwith and in any event within a period not later than four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Registrar, Original Side of this court, is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar, Alipore Judges' court 24-Parganas (south ). The mater remains part heard and stands adjourned till four weeks hence. "

( 9 ) THIS order has been challenged before us. The appellant's short point is that adjudication of an application filed under section 11 (5) of the Act cannot be made subject to disposal of an application filed by the applicant under section 8 of the Act.

( 10 ) THE respondent has submitted that the order was not an appealable one. It has also been submitted that the court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 11 of the Act at all as the power was solely ve