JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 4-10-1978 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jeypore in M.J.C. No. 84/77 directing appointment of an Arbitrator on the petition u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act filed by the opposite party, before that Court. 2. The opposite party's case in the said petition is that it had entered into an agreement with the Petitioners to execute a work in the Dandakaranva Project. The work could not be completed within the stipulated period due to various lapses, delay and negligence of the Petitioners and the opposite party approached the Chief Administrator (Petitioner No. 2) to finalise and pay up the dues of the opposite party in respect of the portion of the work already executed by it. The Petitioners then offered an amount to the opposite party as per the hill prepared by the Executive Engineer working under the Petitioners, but the opposite party could not accept tbe said amount. Thereafter the opp. party requested the Petitioners under letter No. ARB/DNK/1/77(Ex- 3) to appoint an Arbitrator from amongst the five persons named in the said letter to settle the dispute arising out of the claim put forward by it in respect of the aforesaid work. It was mentioned in the said letter that the aside should be treated as a notice u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act. Admittedly, that letter was received on 14-4-1974. On receipt of the said letter the Petitioners, without agreeing to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, demanded in terms of Clause 2 of tbe agreement a certain sum of money from tbe opposite party towards damages or compensation for not completing the work. As no action was taken by the Petitioners on the aforesaid letter (Ex 3) of the opposite party to the Petitioners, the opposite party filed a petition u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act in the Court below which was registered as M.J.C. No. 84/77 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the aforesaid dispute between the parties. This Civil Revision is against the order of the Court below allowing the said petition. 3. This Civil Revision is against the order of the Court below allowing the said petition. 3. In the Court below as also in this Court it has been alleged on behalf of the Petitioners that in respect of the said work there was no agreement between the parties to refer any such dispute for arbitration, it is also alleged that after the said work was entrusted to the opposite party by the Petitioners, the opposite party did not sign the terms and conditions of the prescribed agreement form, but it only signed the schedule attached thereto, and, therefore, Clause 25 in, the prescribed agreement form containing the arbitration clause does not bind the parties, and so the opposite party cannot take recourse to the said clause for the purpose of referring the matter for arbitration. It was also alleged that by the letter dated 21-6-1968 the opposite party admitted that there was no agreement between the parties for settlement of any such dispute by arbitration. Mostly on the above grounds the petition u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act is opposed by the Petitioners. 4. In the Court below the Petitioners in this revision produce a stitched file and the entire thing has been marked as Ext. D. It contains the terms and conditions of the agreement and also the schedule of work and rates at which the said work was to be executed by the opposite patty. All the pages of the said agreement have been signed by the Executive Engineer. Dandakaranya Project on behalf of the Petitioners, but the opposite party has signed only the pages containing the schedule and the rates at which the said work was to be executed. The Court below has held that the said agreement (Ext. D) is the original agreement between the parties. It also finds that the arbitration Clause 25 In the terms and conditions portion of the said agreement binds both the parties, and the Petitioners having failed to appoint an Arbitrator an application u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable. Accordingly, it has allowed the petition u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act and has directed the parties to file a list of 3 persons of the rank of Superintending Engineers, who were 10 service but unconnected with the work in question, out of whom one is to be appointed as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute. 5. Accordingly, it has allowed the petition u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act and has directed the parties to file a list of 3 persons of the rank of Superintending Engineers, who were 10 service but unconnected with the work in question, out of whom one is to be appointed as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute. 5. On hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and ongoing through the papers on records I find that the Superintending Engineer. Dandakaranya Project (Petitioner bo. 3) by his letter dated 24-5-1977 wrote to the opposite party that extension of time for completion of the work was granted by the concerned Engineer without prejudice to the rights of the Government to recover liquidated damages In accordance with the provisions of Clause 2 of the said agreement. From that letter it is quite evident that the Petitioners in dealing with the matter in question took up the stand that the different clauses mentioned in the terms and conditions portion of the agreement were valid and binding between the parties. O.P.W. 1 has also stated in cross-examination that the penalty notice to realise compensation from the opposite party was issued under Clause 2 of the standard agreement prescribed under the rules. Moreover, it sounds unrealistic that the work of the type and dimension which was entrusted to the opposite party was allowed to be executed without any terms and conditions attached to it. O.P.W. 1 has admitted that the agreement form is prescribed under the rules and a schedule has been attached to the said agreement. The schedule portion, containing the details about the nature of the work and the rates at which it was to be executed, has been signed by both the parties. Ext. B dated 22-8-1959 shows that the opposite party wrote to the Executive Engineer looking after the work on behalf of the Petitioners that the agreement in question should be prepared at an early date so as to enable the opposite party to get payment for the work which it was executing or was to execute. Ext. C is a letter dated 23-6-1960 issued by the Executive Engineer, Koraput Division, Dandakaranya Project, to the opposite party by which the opposite party was asked on behalf of the Petitioners to sign the left over pages in the original copy of the agreement as it had not done so. Ext. C is a letter dated 23-6-1960 issued by the Executive Engineer, Koraput Division, Dandakaranya Project, to the opposite party by which the opposite party was asked on behalf of the Petitioners to sign the left over pages in the original copy of the agreement as it had not done so. This letter very clearly indicates that it had been agreed between the parties that the work in question was to be executed in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the prescribed printed agreement form Ext D, but somehow the opposite party signed only the pages in which the schedule of the work had been specified but not the other pages. There is nothing to show that after the opposite party received Ext. C, it reacted by stating that it was not bound by the said terms and conditions or that for the purpose of executing the work mentioned in the schedule the terms and conditions would not hold good. From the nature of the work and tbe communication between the parties and other papers on record I am satisfied that both the parties had agreed that the work in question was to be executed in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the prescribed form in the different pages and both the parties were bound by the said terms and conditions though the opposite party had not specifically signed that portion of the agreement. Clause 25 of the said agreement is an arbitration clause. It is well settled that a written arbitration clause in the agreement is enforceable if there was agreement between the parties to that effect, even if the parties do not expressly append their signatures to the same. In Seth Banarsi Das Vs. The Cane Commissioner and Another it has been held that it is well settled law that to constitute an arbitration agreement in writing it is not necessary that it should be signed by the parties. It is sufficient that the terms are reduced to writing and the agreement of the parties thereto is established. Similar views have been expressed on the same point in the decisions reported in Union of India (UOI) Vs. A.L. Rallia Ram, ; State of Orissa Vs. Gobind Choudhury and Sons, . 6. It is sufficient that the terms are reduced to writing and the agreement of the parties thereto is established. Similar views have been expressed on the same point in the decisions reported in Union of India (UOI) Vs. A.L. Rallia Ram, ; State of Orissa Vs. Gobind Choudhury and Sons, . 6. There is no specific admission in the letter dated 21-6-1968, issued by the lawyer for the opposite party to the Executive Engineer under the Petitioners, that the terms and conditions mentioned in Ext. D had not been agreed upon between the parties. From the letter dated 24-8-1960 it is clear that the opposite party depended on the terms and conditions of the agreement while intimating its intention to terminate the said agreement. 7. On hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and on a perusal of the documents on record and the impugned order and for reasons stated above I find that there is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Hearing fee Rs. 100/-. 8. The Petitioners shall furnish before the Court below a panel of names as directed by the Court below within a month from today from which an Arbitrator is to be appointed. The L C.R. be sent back immediately. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed