The court emphasized the duty of the court to come to the assistance of the parties by the removal of the impasse and the extrication of their rights, and highlighted the permissibility of amendments necessary for the determination of the real controversy in the suit.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. 107/78 id the court of the Principal Sub Judge Palghat is the revision petitioner.

2. The suit, instituted under S.20 of the Arbitration Act, is for an order directing the defendant to file the agreement, containing the arbitration clause, entered into between 'the plaintiff and the defendant, in court for the purpose of referring the dispute to an arbitrator who will be appointed by the court. The defendant, instead of responding to the notice ordered in the suit, filed O.S. 130/78, wherein be had prayed that under the contract, amounts are due to him and since the plaintiff-petitioner failed to pay the said amounts despite notice, a decree be passed against the plaintiff. In the said suit the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under S.34 of the Arbitration Act. The court below as also this court rejected the said application. Thereafter the court below has ordered joint trial of the suits. O.S. 107/78 and O.S. 130/78.

3. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, his suit would become infructuous unless the reliefs prayed for therein are substituted by the reliefs made mention of in the petition filed by it under Order VI R.17 CPC. In the petition for amendment, the plaintiff has specifically stated that the prayer for appointment of the arbitrator has become infructuous in view of the judgment in M.F.A. 661/80 of this court, confirming the order of the Subordinate Court rejecting its application under S.34 Arbitration Act, seeking stay of the suit, O.S. 130/78. The plaintiff submits that in the changed circumstances, brought about by the above judgment of this court, the Subordinate Court, inasmuch as it has seisin of the matter, ought have to be proceeded to adjudicate upon the matter sought to be referred to arbitrator. The petitioner-plaintiff however, can have this remedy only by amending the pleadings and incorporating the reliefs made mention of in the application in the place of the original reliefs.

4. The defendant opposed the amendment. He contended that the amendment if allowed, would change the character of the suit. He also contended that the dispute arising for consideration in the suit, the pleadings of which are sought to be amended, has nothing to do with the claim projected by him in O.S. 130/ 78. A dispute which is to be adjudicated upon by the arbitrator cannot be converted into a claim for recovery of damages in a suit, he submitts. A suit for recovery of damages is already time barred and therefore the amendment sought for is liable to be rejected.

5. The court below after considering the various aspects of the conflicting contentions of the parties, has dismissed the petition for amendment and it is the said order that is under challenge in this revision.

6. The question arising for consideration is this. whether the amendment sought for can be allowed? This question, apparently simple, can however be answered only if we understand the nature of the courts' jurisdiction under the law of arbitration. The law of Arbitration is primarily concerned with the questions whether the Court has jurisdiction to compel a party to arbitrate in accordance with the terms of the arbitration clause in a contract and honour the resulting award, whether the court can intervene to remedy injustice resulting from defects in the conduct of the proceedings by the arbitrator and so on Here we are concerned only with an aspect covered by the second question, which, to put it specifically is. has the civil court the jurisdiction itself to enquire into the merits of a dispute which was sought to be referred to arbitrator but could not, due to supervening circumstances. Now coming to the legal aspects: Jurisprudentially speaking an arbitrator it only a delegate of judicial powers which essentially are the property of the State. It is only a court which represents the judicial power, namely the power by which every State must of necessity have to decide controversies between its citizens or betw