' We had heard Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, Advocate for the appellant on 29-8-1997. He contended that before making an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the respondents should have informed the appellants by way of a notice of their intention for appointment of an arbitrator. He has challenged the maintainability of the application under section 20 of the said Act and that it was barred by limitation.
The notice is not a condition pre-requsite of section 20 of the Arbitration nor it was agitated before the learned Single Judge. It cannot be agitated now. The application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was maintainable because the agreement between the parties is not disputed and the Arbitration clause is admitted. The contention of the learned counsel regarding limitation, also does not carry any force as the dispute arising in 1983 between the parties had no nexus with the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. No other illegality has been pointed-out by the learned counsel hence the impugned order does not require any interference. The merits of the claim will be questioned before the arbitrator as there exists a dispute between the parties.
' In view of the above facts we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.
2. C.M.A. No,242 of 1997 has become infructuous. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.