SATISH CHANDRA, J.:- This is a plaintiff's appeal. It is directed against an order dismissing an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act.

2. Messrs Heavy Electricals Limited gave a contract to the appellant for making certain construction work. The work was completed by the first week of March, 1965. The Company prepared a final bill of the work done by the appellant. On 29-03-1965 the appellant signed a no claim declaration and also gave a receipt in token of accepting the amount found due to the appellant. The appellant raised disputes in regard to some of the items of work, alleging short payment. Finding no response, the appellant served a notice upon the company requiring it to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contract. This also failed to evoke any response from the company. Consequently on 16th September, 1968 the appellant moved an application in court under Section 20 Arbitration Act praying that the court may require the agreement to be filed in court and refer the disputes between the parties to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement.

3. The Company contested this application. It pleaded that the appellant had given a clear no claim certificate in final settlement of his claims in respect of the work done under the contract, and that he accepted payment of Rs.12,374.04 by means of a cheque dated 14-12-1965 in full and final settlement of his dues. This amounted to the discharge of the contract, along with which the arbitration agreement extinguished, as such no dispute capable of being referred to arbitration remained in existence. The application under Section 20 was not maintainable.

4. The court below accepted the plea raised in bar and dismissed the application. Hence this appeal.

5. The final bill has at the end a printed declaration to the following effect:-

"I have no other claim outstanding against the Heavy Electricals (India) Ltd. for work done or for labour or materials supplied or on any other account and the payment of this bill shall be in final settlement of all my claims in respect of the work to which Agreement/work order No.3/c-vi/64 dated 20-11-1964 with the company relates."

This declaration was signed by the appellant. Just after that there is a memorandum or payment in the final bill and thereafter column No.5 deals with the receipt of payment; and it says, "Received Rs.12,374.04 as final payment in settlement of demand as per details above on account of this work by cheque No.007805, dated 14-12-1965. This is also signed by the appellant. The signatures defacing the stamp are dated 29-03-1965 and by the side of the signature, the appellant wrote the words under protest. It appears that the appellant signed the declaration as well as the column No.5 meant for receipt of the cheque on 29-03-1965 and also made the endorsement of 'under protest' the same day, whereas the cheque was actually prepared and delivered on 14-12-1965.

6. For the appellant it was argued that the signing of the no claim declaration and the grant of a full settlement receipt was in law the discharge of the contract. The contractor could not thereafter raise any dispute as to the payment under the contract. With the discharge of the contract, the arbitration clause extinguished and no alleged dispute could validly be referred to arbitration. It was urged that the endorsement of 'under protest' made by the appellant on the bill did not change the situation. For the appellant reliance was placed upon words and phrases by Roland Burrows, Vol.V., page 361. There observation of Langdale. M.R. in Re: Massey (1845), 8 Beav. 458 at p.462 has been quoted as under,-

"It is said that the money was received by the petitioner, and the receipt given under protest. These words are often used on these occasions, but they have no distinct technical meaning, unless accompanied with a statement of circumstances, showing that they were used by way of notice or protes