Short Note : 1. The non-applicant and the applicants were partners in certain business. The partnership came to be dissolved. The non-applicant wanted accounts to be settled and gave a notice to the applicants for appointment of a arbitrator as per clause 18 of the Partnership Agreement. The applicants paid no heed to the notice. The non-applicant, therefore, moved II Civil Judge Class I, Raipur, under Section 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The applicants contended that the accounts had been fully settled and there was no dispute left which cold be referred to an arbitrator. 3. The Court recorded evidence and gave a finding that the accounts had not been settled as contended by the applicants. Accordingly, an order was made that an arbitrator shall be appointed. The applicants feeling aggrieved have come up in revision. 4. The clause is all comprehensive and even the dispute whether the accounts had or had not been settled was a dispute referable to arbitration. Damodar Valley Corporation vs. K.K. Kar, AIR 1974 SC 158 . The Court therefore, need not have entered into an inquiry as regards non-settlement or settlement of accounts. That should have been left to be decided by the Arbitrator. The Court should only have seen whether a dispute or difference had arisen which invoked the arbitration clause. If there was any such dispute or difference and either party wanted the dispute or difference to be settled through arbitration, the Court should have appointed an arbitrator. 5. In this view of tile matter, the order of the Court appointing an arbitrator cannot be interfered with but the finding on the issue whether or not the accounts were settled should be struck down, that being a dispute referable to the arbitrator. Revision dismissed.