( 1 ) THIS is a revision application by the Union of India against an order of the learned Civil Judge, varanasi, allowing an application under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act.

( 2 ) THE application was made by the respondent, Gorakh Mohandas, praying that an arbitrator be appointed to hear and decide certain matters in dispute between the parties, In the application, the respondent represented that he was proprietor of the National Trading Company, Allahabad, that as such proprietor he had entered into a contract with the Union of India and the Northern railway for the supply of stone ballast, that one of the conditions of the contract stipulated was that payment would be made regularly in respect of supplies effected every month and that there was also a condition providing for arbitration in case of a dispute between the parties. It was alleged that although he had made supplies during January and February 1961 and had submitted his bill accordingly, payment had not been made to him for one reason or another. It was said that a dispute had arisen between the parties in respect of the dues payable on account of the supplies made and also in respect of damages suffered on account of the, failure to make payment. A notice dated July 12, 1961 was served upon the General Manager, Northern railway, demanding payment on account of the supplies made and damages suffered, and requiring him, in case he did not pay and disputed the claim, to appoint an arbitrator for the settlement of the dispute in accordance with Clause 64 of the General Conditions of contract. Upon service of this notice it was said the Railway administration paid the amount due on account of the supplies effected but did not pay the damages claimed, nor did it appoint any arbitrator to decide the dispute.

( 3 ) THE application was opposed by the Union of India, inter alia, on the ground that payment due on account of supplies received had been duly made, that there was no liability for damages and, therefore, no dispute could be said to have arisen. It was also pleaded that the application was not maintainable.

( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge found that a dispute had arisen between the parties which required reference to arbitration, that the notice requesting appointment of an arbitrator was legal and valid, and that the request of the respondent for the appointment of an arbitrator not having been attended to he was entitled to apply for the appointment of an arbitrator.

( 5 ) IN disposing of the application, the learned Civil Judge passed the following order: the application is allowed with costs. Sri Sri Narain Singh, Vakil is appointed arbitrator to p into the disputes between the parties as disclosed in the application. He will examine whether or not [he opposite parties have committed any breach of contract and if so, whether the applicant is entitled to damages, if any, and its exact amount. He will probe into any other relevant matter necessary for adjudicating upon the disputes between the parties--the subject matter of this application. He will file his award within three months. The applicant snail pay him Rs. 500/- as fees provisionally. Orders for more fees will be passed later, if and when considered necessary. " it is this order which has been challenged by the present revision application.

( 6 ) WHEN this case came up for hearing before our brother Manchanda, one of the contentions raised by the applicant was that without an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to arbitration. Upon hearing the parties, our learned brother came to the opinion that there was a conflict between the decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. Union of India, 1962 Ail LJ 1006: (AIR 1962 All 242) and in Balika devi v. Kedar Nath Puri, (S) AIR 1956 All 377 and has, therefore, referred this case to a larger bench.

( 7 ) SECTION 8 of the Arbitration Act provides, so far as is mater