JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the Rural Engineering Organisation in this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (wrongly stated as 'Criminal Procedure Code') have challenged the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack appointing Sri S.R. Das, Advocate, as arbitrator to deal with the disputes raised between the contractor (opposite party no. 1) and the State of Orissa represented by the officers. 2. Opposite party no. 1 entered into a contract with the State Government for execution of the H.L Bridge across Kalighai Nala in Bidyadharpur-Manpur Road within Cuttack district under Agreement No. 39 F-2/1972-73 of the Rural Engineering Division, Cuttack West. At the instance of the contractor, the Chief Engineer appointed Sri Jaladhar Behera, a Superintending Engineer, as arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes between the parties relating to the contract. The contractor applied to the Court under sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act for revoking the authority of the appointed arbitrator and for filling up the vacancy by appointment of another arbitrator. By order dated 8-11-1978 in miscellaneous Case No. 108 of 1978, the learned Subordinate Judge removed the arbitrator and directed parties to agree upon a common person to be appointed to fill up the vacancy. The order revoking the authority of the arbitrator has become final having not been disputed. Parties did not nominate a common arbitrator and by order dated 16-11-1978, the learned Subordinate Judge appointed Sri B.K Basu, Government Pleader of Cuttack, as arbitrator in the vacancy. Sri Basu declined to act as arbitrator. Thereupon, on 23-1-1979, the learned Subordinate Judge appointed Sri P.K. Ray, Advocate, to be arbitrator, but Sri Ray also declined, for the reasons indicated in a memorandum filed by him. On 28-2-1979, the learned Subordinate Judge appointed Sri S.R. Das, Advocate, as arbitrator. In this application, the said appointment is challenged. 3. Five grounds have been taken in the revision petition which are to be following effect :- (i) The appointment of Sri S.R. Das as arbitrator is illegal, erroneous and without jurisdiction. (ii) Jurisdiction has been exercised by the learned Subordinate Judge illegally and with material irregularity in not giving effect to Clause 23 of the Agreement between the parties. 3. Five grounds have been taken in the revision petition which are to be following effect :- (i) The appointment of Sri S.R. Das as arbitrator is illegal, erroneous and without jurisdiction. (ii) Jurisdiction has been exercised by the learned Subordinate Judge illegally and with material irregularity in not giving effect to Clause 23 of the Agreement between the parties. (iii) Jurisdiction has been exercised with material irregularity in the matter of making of the choice of arbitrator as the legal position that grant of leave to revoke the authority of the arbitrator or ordering his removal does not do away with the arbitration agreement, has been overlooked. (iv) The Court should have appointed a Superintending Engineer unconnected with the work and had no jurisdiction to go beyond the agreement while filling up the vacancy. (v) Complicated technical matters were involved and the Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter in choosing the arbitrator. 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing in support of the application has not contended that with the revocation of the appointed arbitrator, the arbitration agreement was cancelled. In fact, from the grounds taken and submissions advanced, it is clear that revocation did not wipe out the arbitration clause and the vacancy was intended to be filed up. Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Arbitration Act which clothes the Court with power to deal with the situation arising out of revocation of authority of the appointed arbitrator provides :- "Where the authority of an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire is revoked by leave of the Court, or where the Court removes an umpire who has entered on the reference or a sole arbitrator or all the arbitrators, the Court may, on the application of any party to the arbitration agreement, either - (a) appoint a person to act as sole arbitrator in the place of the person or persons displaced, (or) Order that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect with respect to the difference referred." Under sub-section (2), the Court has power either to direct that the arbitration agreement ceases to have effect or to fill up the vacancy. Learned Government Advocate does not contend, as already pointed out, that the Court should have directed the arbitration agreement should have been ceased to have effect. Learned Government Advocate does not contend, as already pointed out, that the Court should have directed the arbitration agreement should have been ceased to have effect. In Russell on the Law of Arbitration (at page 218), it has been stated that when there is failure of the appointed arbitrator to act, there is power for the Court to appoint, where :- "An appointed arbitrator or umpire or third arbitrator refuses to act, or is incapable of acting, or dies ; And the arbitration agreement does not show that it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied ; And the parties did not supply the vacancy." In the instant case, the Court gave an opportunity to parties to file up the vacancy and they could not agree upon a common arbitrator. On that footing the Court proceeded to appoint two advocates, one after the other in succession, and ultimately has made the impugned appointment. The Arbitration Act does not put any embargo on the power of the Court in filling up the vacancy after there has been revocation and it is found that parties had not intended not to fill up the vacancy. The stand taken that the arbitration agreement should have been kept in view suggests that only a Superintending Engineer unconnected with the work should have been appointed and it was not open to the Court to go outside the ambit of the arbitration clause in the matter of appointment. Learned Government Advocate failed to indicate any precedent to support his contention that even when a situation arose authorising the Court to fill up the vacancy, the Court has to confine its choice to the category named in the agreement. There have been several instances where Courts have gone beyond the arbitration clause in the matter of appointing an arbitrator when there has been a vacancy and such appointments have been upheld. In the absence of any authority to support the contention, I do not think, I would be justified in holding that jurisdiction has been exercised illegally or with material irregularity when the learned Subordinate Judge appointed an advocate in place of an Engineer. 5. It is not correct to contend that the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded on the footing that the arbitration agreement had been done away with. 5. It is not correct to contend that the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded on the footing that the arbitration agreement had been done away with. The fact that he has proceeded to fill up the vacancy clearly indicates that the learned Subordinate Judge has proceeded on the footing that the arbitration agreement did not terminate. The third ground raised in the revision petition seems to be without any justification. 6. It would not be out of place to indicate that entire submission of learned Government Advocate is that a Superintending Engineer unconnected with the work and not an Advocate from the Bar should have been appointed as arbitrator. He does not dispute that under the law, when authority of the arbitrator has been revoked and parties have not been able to nominate a common arbitrator to fill up the vacancy, the appointment by the Court has to be in its discretion. In exercise of such discretion, if the Court had appointed an Engineer, there could be no valid objection raised against such appointment. The question for consideration now is that when the Court in exercise of its discretion has appointed an advocate in place of an Engineer, is the appointment liable to be vacated ? During hearing of the application, to a pointed query, the learned Government Advocate very fairly stated that he had no particular grievance against Sri S.R. Das from the point of view of honesty and integrity. There if an affidavit on record filed on the date of hearing which shows that Sri Das was enrolled in the year 1970 and has already put in more than 9? years of practice at the Bar. He has handled civil, company and taxation cases and he is acquainted with accounting matters and procedure. He has also handled several arbitration disputes. He is a member of the local Bar and has often appeared in cases in the High Court. With the experience he has put in, he would have been qualified to be a Subordinate Judge by now if he had entered into Judicial Service and then he would have been entitled as a Court of unlimited jurisdiction to try the dispute giving rise to the claim for arbitration. When there is no challenge to his honesty and integrity and there is no other disqualification alleged. When there is no challenge to his honesty and integrity and there is no other disqualification alleged. I am not impressed by the general submissions raised in the revision petition that the appointment should have been confined to an Engineer. An advocate with sufficient experience is capable of handling any dispute. In fact, if this dispute instead of going before an arbitrator had come before the Court, Mr. Das as an Advocate for one of the parties would have been capable to handle the matter. As already indicated, if he were the trial judge in seisin of the matter, he would have also decided the dispute. There have been several occasions where with a view to elucidating technical questions, assistance of experts has been taken either by Court or by arbitrator. In a recent dispute of this type, a learned Single Judge of this Court appointed a retired Judge of the High Court as arbitrator and gave leave for the appointment of an expert to elucidate difficulties arising out of technical matters. Merely because a Superintending. Engineer has not been appointed and in his judicial discretion, the learned Subordinate Judge has appointed a member of the Bar, I cannot find any justification to disturb the appointment. Seasoning at the Bar for an advocate who has occasion to gather experience is the best training, as indicated by Lord Halsbury in one of his letters quoted in 78 Quarterly Review at page 519 and I fail to see force in the submission that on experienced advocate not having any disqualification except that he is not an expert in engineering would not be able to handle the dispute in the instant case even if he takes the assistance of an expert as and when such occasion might arise. 7. The jurisdiction of the Court in a revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited and since I have not been able to find that jurisdiction has been exercised either illegally or with material irregularity as contemplated under section 115(1)(c) of the Code, no relief is available in this application. 8. Learned Government Advocate had cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Prabhat General Agencies etc. v. Union of India and another AIR 1971 S.C. 2298 . 8. Learned Government Advocate had cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Prabhat General Agencies etc. v. Union of India and another AIR 1971 S.C. 2298 . The learned Judges in that case were mainly considering whether the vacancy was intended to be filled up and having recorded a finding that parties had intended not to leave the vacancy unfilled remitted the matter to the trial Court for appointment of an arbitrator. Nothing has been said in the said judgment which supports the submission of learned Government Advocate. 9. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred. Final Result : Dismissed