JUDGMENT :

Manash Ranjan Pathak, J.

Heard Mrs. A. Gayan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ghanshyam Das Dhiman in-person for the sole respondent.

2. Petitioners had filed a petition being Petition No. 195/2022 under Section 8(2) of Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur against the sole respondent praying for appointment of a new Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 1/2019 by substituting or terminating the earlier Arbitrator, who failed to pass the award within the prescribed time, wherein the sole respondent herein was the only opposite party. Said petition No. 195/2022 of the petitioner was duly registered and numbered as Misc.(j) Case No. 01/2022 [arising out of T.S. (Arb) No. 19/2003].

3. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur by order dated 28.02.2022 passed in said Misc.(j) Case No. 01/2022 rejected the prayer of the petitioners for appointment of new Arbitrator under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and extended the period of the sole Arbitrator for another three months from the date of the said order i.e., on or before 31.05.2022, as it appeared to the said Court to be justified fact and circumstances of the said case.

4. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in the said Misc.(j) Case No. 01/2022, noted above, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

5. Husband of the respondent was a proprietor of a firm, namely, S.R. Engineering Construction at Haleswar in the District of Sonitpur. During his lifetime, he secured a work order from the petitioner vide CA No. CWE/TEZ/8 of 1987-1988 for construction of the permanent Armament Section under Garrison. On completion of the said work, his son received payment against the bill raised on 18.01.1993 endorsing ‘no further claim’. It was alleged that the said payment was accepted as the husband of the petitioner was in need of cash for making payment to his creditors. The respondent raised a dispute relating to the payment under the contract which was communicated to the petitioners on 11.01.1993 to resolve the issue under Clause 70 of IAFW of the Arbitration Agreement which was turned down by the Garrison Engineer on 17.05.1993 against which the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Arbitration, 1996 before the Court at Delhi being T.S. Case No. 170/1994. However, the same was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Against the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Said appeal too was dismissed directing the Court below to return the petition for filing the same before the proper forum. In terms of the same, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi by order dated 17.12.1999 returned the petition to the respondent for its presentation before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the respondent preferred an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Court of Civil Judge, Sonitpur being T.S. (Arbitration) Case No. 19/2003, which was dismissed on 10.05.2004. Against the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before this High Court. On 21.09.2018, said appeal of the respondent was dismissed, remanding the matter to the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur for appropriate adjudication of the said application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 preferred by the respondent as well as its own merit and in accordance with law.

6. On 26.08.2019, said application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, i.e., T.S. (Arbitration) Case No. 19/2003 was allowed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur directing the present petitioners, i.e., defendants in the said T.S. (Arbitration) Case No. 19/2003 to produce the arbitration agreement in reference before the Court within 20 days from the date of said order, referring the matter to the arbitration, directing the parties to the proceeding at