( 1. ) THIS is a revision under Section 115, CPC by the non-applicants against the order dated 11-5-2000 in Civil Suit No. 20-A of 1996 of the 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal by which the application for appointment of arbitrator has been allowed and the non-applicants have been directed to appoint arbitrator for resolution of the dispute in terms of the arbitration agreement. ( 2. ) NON-APPLICANT National Dairy Development Board invited tenders for construction of chilling plant at Harda. The applicant submitted his tender. He was awarded contract. There is arbitration agreement in Clause 90 of the Contract. There arose dispute between the parties in respect of payment of some of the items claimed by the applicant. The non-applicant made payment of Rs. 18,397/- on 1-10-1990. Thereafter, on 23-11-1990 the non-applicant wrote a letter to the applicant informing him that a further payment of Rs. 26,145/- can be made if the applicant gives in writing that he would not make any further claim. According to the applicant the final bill was not prepared. The applicant wrote the letter dated 11-3-1996 to the non-applicant for appointment of an arbitrator as per arbitration clause in the contract for resolving the dispute. But the arbitrator was not appointed. The applicant submitted an application on 6-5-1996 before the 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal for the appointment of arbitrator. This application was described to be "under Section 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act". By the impugned order this application has been allowed and the non-applicants have been directed to appoint an arbitrator as per arbitration agreement.

( 3. ) THE case of the non-applicant was that the applicant has been paid for the work done by him and by the letter dated 13-9-1990 he was informed that no further payment is to be made. Therefore, the applicants application for appointment of arbitrator is barred by limitation.

( 4. ) THE first question is whether the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the Arbitration Act, 1940 is applicable. The non-applicant in its application dated 31-10-1996 before the 5th Additional District Judge has stated that the Act of 1996 is applicable and now in this revision the learned Counsel for the petitioners (the non-applicants) attempted to argue that the old Act would apply. This somersault is not permissible. It is admitted that the applicant made a request to the non-applicant on 11-3-1996 for appointment of arbitrator. According to Section 21 of the Act of 1996 unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. Therefore, the arbitral proceedings commenced on 113-1996 or shortly thereafter when this request was received by the non-applicant. The application for appointment of the arbitrator was submitted before the 5th Additional District Judge on 6-5-1996. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1996 are attracted which had come into force on 25-1-1996. In the revision petition it is mentioned that the applicant had given first notice on 7-10-1992 for appointment of arbitrator and it was followed by second notice on 30-8-1993 seeking the appointment of the arbitrator and as these notices were served before the new Act came into force the provisions of the old Act would apply. But in the reply to the applicants application submitted before the 5th Additional District Judge on 6-5-1998 no reference was made to the notices dated 7-10-1992 and 30-8-1993 nor copies of such notices were produced. As there was no pleading or any document in this respect he could not rely upon them and the same can not be considered by the Revisional Court. It has been rightly held that the provisions of the new Act are applicable to the present case.

( 5. ) THE next question is whether the revision against the impugned order is legally maintainable ? The applicati