Applications under S.20 of the Arbitration Act are subject to the three-year limitation period set forth in Article 181 of the Limitation Act.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the Union of India. It is directed against an order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, granting an application under S.8 and S.20, Arbitration Act.

2. Mohammad Usman, the plaintiff - respondent, on 8-3-1945 entered it to a contract with the Union of India to supply meat to the Military Regiment between 1-1-1945 and 31-3-1946. The plaintiff alleged that he made the requisite supplies, but was not fully paid. According to him, a sum of Rs. 8,38,994/10/6 was still payable to him by the Union of India. He made several representations to the appellant for payment, as also for arbitration of the dispute by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Headquarters, Eastern Command, Lucknow, who was the officer named in the contract as arbitrator to settle the differences arising between the parties under the arbitration clause of the contract. By his letter dated 10-7-1958, which was served on the plaintiff on 15-7-1958, the G.O.C. In Chief, Headquarters Eastern Command, Lucknow, informed the plaintiff that there was no valid reason for holding the arbitration in the case. The plaintiff on 20-4-1961 issued a notice under S.80 C.P.C. and on 11-7-1961 filed in court, an application under S.8 and S.20, Arbitration Act, praying that the arbitration agreement be directed to be filed in court, and that an arbitrator be appointed for giving an award.

3. The application was contested on the grounds, inter alia, that the application was not maintainable in the name of the plaintiff, that it was barred by S.69, Indian Partnership Act, that the notice under S.80 C.P.C. was invalid, that the application was barred by Art. 181, Indian Limitation Act , and that the plaintiff had been paid in full for the supplies made by him and nothing was due.

4. The learned Additional Civil Judge by his Judgment dated 13-9-1963 repelled all the pleas and granted the application. Aggrieved, the Union of India has come to this Court in appeal under S.39, Arbitration Act. The memorandum of appeal prays that the judgment of the court below be set aside and the application under S.8 and S.20 of the Arbitration Act be dismissed.

5. S.8, Arbitration Act, 1940 , provides for the appointment of an arbitrator by the court under the diverse contingencies mentioned in that section. S.39, Arbitration Act, does not provide for an appeal against an order made under S.8, Arbitration Act. S.39 enumerates the various orders against which an appeal lies and it further provides that an appeal shall not He from any other order passed under this Act. It is apparent that no appeal lies against the order passed under S.8, Arbitration Act; and the prayer in this appeal that the application under S.8, Arbitration Act, be dismissed cannot be granted. In so far as this appeal seeks to challenge the order under S.8, Arbitration Act, it is incompetent and la dismissed.

6. In respect of the order passed under S.20, Arbitration Act, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, had urged only one point, that the application was barred by time under Art. 181, Indian Limitation Act .

7. Before considering this contention, we may dispose or a preliminary objection taken by Pt. Gopi Nath Kunzru for the respondent. He urged that as the Additional Civil Judge did not in terms direct the filing of the arbitration agreement, and inasmuch as S.39(1)(iv), Arbitration Act, provides for an appeal from an order filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement alone, the present appeal is not competent.

8. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff