JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:—Leave granted.

2. Pursuant to the notice issued on the Special Leave Petition No. 7575 of 1992, the respondents have appeared and have filed counter affidavits and the appellant has also filed affidavit of rejoinder. The special leave petition out of which this appeal arises is directed against Order dated February 13, 1992 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No. 226% of 1991. The said Civil Revision was filed by the respondents against Order dated May 10, 1991 by which the learned Vth Additional Judge, City Civil Court of Hyderabad allowed the application filed under Ss. 3, 5, 11 and 12 read with Ss. 8 and 9 of the Indian Arbitration Act for removal of the named Arbitrator in the agreement dated December 11, 1986 and to appoint the sole arbitrator in his place.

3. The learned Judge, City Civil Court inter alia came to the finding that it was a fit case where the sole arbitrator should be appointed for adjudicating the dispute and differences between the parties arising out of the agreement in question and the learned Judge appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes and differences arising out of the arbitration agreement for entering upon the reference and sign and pass the award according to law.

4. The case of the appellant in short is that the appellant is a Class I Contractor. He entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 1, A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., for the construction of main sewer line from Point (H) near C. C. Building IDA Nacharam to the disposal units of Nallacheru (near Uppal) on December 11, 1986. Pursuant to such agreement, the appellant completed the work in question. Since certain disputes and differences had arisen between the appellant and the said Corporation during the execution and completion of the contract, the appellant by notice dated June 27, 1988 requested the Chairman of the Corporation to refer the dispute for arbitration as per Clause 73 of the preliminary specifications of A. P. Standard specifications, hereinafter referred to as the standard specifications. As the first respondent refused to settle the claims, the appellant sent a claim petition dated October 3, 1988 to the named arbitrator which was received by the said named arbitrator on October 5, 1988. As the appellant did not receive any communication from the named arbitrator, he sent a reminder under registered post on November 28, 1988 to the named arbitrator. The name arbitrator, however, did not enter upon the reference within a period of one month and also did not pass any award within a period of four months as contemplated in the Indian Arbitration Act. The appellant also contended in the said application for appointment of arbitrator in place of the named arbitrator that the Chairman of the Corporation, namely, the first respondent had sent an undated letter signed on November 8, 1988 informing the appellant that para3 of the article of the agreement since referred to by the appellant was erroneous and while making copies of the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties, wrong sheets were enclosed but in the original agreement, since signed between the parties, there was no arbitration clause for the work in question. The appellant, however, gave a further notice dated January 5, 1989 through his learned Advocate calling upon the said respondent to concur for the appointment of any one of the three persons named in the said notice to act as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising between the parties. On receiving such notice, the first respondent by his letter dated January 18, 1989 informed the learned Advocate of the appellant that as there was no arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties, the question of entertaining, the request to appoint arbitrator did not arise. In view of such failure on the part of the respondent to refer the dispute to the