An application for arbitration is barred by limitation if filed beyond the three-year period stipulated, starting from the date the cause of action arose as determined by prior communications.

1.Respondent in Arbitration O.P. No. 1 of 1996, on the file of Additional District Court, Karaikal, is the revision petitioner.

2. The Revision is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent herein entered into three contracts with the petitioner on 20-7-1990, 8-8-1990 and 17-1-1992. All these agreements provide for arbitration in the event of dispute arising between the parties relating to the terms and conditions or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the terms and conditions of the contract. The contracts also provide for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to decide the dispute, who will have to be appointed by the petitioner on the request made by the party. During the progress of work, dispute arose between the parties in regard to certain matters and, therefore, as per registered letter dated 18-3-1993, respondent herein requested the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause. Petitioner received three separate notices dated 18-3-1993, on 22-3-1993. A reminder was also sent. But the purpose was not achieved. Petitioner - Oil and Natural Gas Commission refused to appoint any arbitrator as per the clause. For the above reason, respondent herein prayed for the passing of an order directing the petitioner herein to appoint an arbitrator to decide the dispute arising under the three contracts within a specified time.

3. In the counter filed by the petitioner, the main contention that was raised was regarding question of limitation. It was stated in the counter that the application is barred by limitation, and the respondent ought to have come forward with the application within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. When the petitioner himself has sent a notice admitting that there is a dispute, and wanted the appointment of an arbitrator, under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, the application ought to have been filed within three years thereafter. Other objections were also raised, i.e., application was filed under S.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , which has no application and, therefore, the application itself could have been rejected. It was also contended that the Court at Karaikal has no jurisdiction, and the application should have been filed only at Madras.

4. By the impugned order, the lower Court rejected all the contentions of the petitioner and allowed the application. The lower Court found that after the notice dated 18-3-1993, under Exs. A - 30, A - 31 and A - 32, there was correspondence between the parties up to 9-7-1993 and the application was filed within three years thereafter, and it is therefore within time. It also held that the District Court, Karaikal has jurisdiction and regarding provision of law, it held that merely because a wrong provision of law has been quoted, that will not be a ground for rejection of the application.

5. The order is challenged under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Before this Court also, learned Counsel for petitioner mainly argued that the application is hopelessly barred by limitation.

7. To consider the same, let us look into the application itself filed before the lower Court. In paragraph IV, regarding cause of action, it is stated thus : -
"The cause of action for the petition arose at Neravi, Karaikal District, where the three tenders dated 20-7-1990, 8-8-1990 and 18-1-1992 and the respective agreements dated 6-4-91, 28-12-90 and 28-8-1992 were executed and signed, and the place where the work was carried on a