VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS litigation has fallen for consideration de novo for the second time. By Orders dated 23. 7. 2003, a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed by C. K. Mahajan, J. In the Order, it had been stated that the respondent had failed to file Replies and to controvert the statement of facts and allegations made in the application. However, Replies had been filed by respondent No. 1 on 24th december, 1999 to which a Rejoinder had been filed by the applicant on 8th May, 2000. These were overlooked since they had been wrongly filed by the Dealing clerk in Part -. The Orders dated 23. 7. 2003 appointing an Arbitrator came to be set aside by the Supreme Court on this short ground.

( 2 ) THE existence of the following arbitration clause is not in dispute:

"28. All disputes and differences of any kind whatever arising out of or in connection with the Contract or the carrying out of the works (whether during the progress of the works or after their completion and whether before or after the determination, abandonment or breach of the Contract) shall be referred to and settled by the Architect who shall state his decision in writing, such decision may be in the form of a fi