Short Note : 1. This revision is filed by non-applicants (petitioners) against an order dated 22.4.1976 appointing non-applicant No. 2 as Arbitrator on the application under section 8 read with section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts essential for purposes of the decision of this revision are as under: "(a) That there was a contract dated 30.12.1968 between Om Prakash non-applicant No. 1 and the Food Corporation of India in respect of handling and transport work to be executed at Dabar between the period ranging 6.1.1969 to 5.4.1969. The contract contains an agreement about reference to arbitration." 3. After completion of the work the non-applicant No. 1 submitted a final Bill No. 3 on 8.4.1969 for Rs. 6436.20 Paise. 4. Thereafter, the non-applicant No. 1 served notice by registered post dated 19.7.1969 through Advocate calling upon them to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest or to appoint Arbitrator as per the aforesaid terms contained in the contract between the parties. On failure of the non-applicants i.e. the Food Corporation of India through the Regional Manager Bhopal and the Managing Director of Food Corporation New Delhi, the non-applicant No. 1 submitted an application on 8.1.1972. 5. In the revision Mr. Shivram Shrivastava has confined his contention only to the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed under section 8 of the Act without passing an order of reference under section 20 (4) of the Act. Mr. R.D. Sharma learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1 has argued in support of the impugned order. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to be partly allowed. 7. So far as the contention of Mr. Shivram Shrivastava goes it appears to have great force. The ratio of the case Parganiha and Agnihotri (Firm) vs. Union of India, 1977 JLJ 467 as laid down in Para 6 thereof applies on all fours to the present situation. It has been held by Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case that:- "After a reference is once made under section 20 (4) other provisions of the Act including section 8 begin to apply because of section 20 (5). But until a reference is made the matter is solely governed by section 20 (4) and section 8 has no application." 8. But until a reference is made the matter is solely governed by section 20 (4) and section 8 has no application." 8. In this case by the impugned order the Court has without making a reference as contemplated by section 20 (4) of the Act has proceeded to appoint the arbitrator directly under section 8 thereof. This is in dear contravention of the ratio of the aforesaid case. Accordingly, the impugned order appears to have been passed in an illegal manner. 9. According to sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act where no sufficient cause is shown, the Court shall order the agreement to be filed and shall make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties, whether in the agreement or otherwise, or where the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, to an arbitrator appointed by the Court. In the instant case no cause, what of sufficient cause, is shown why the Court should not pass an order directing filing of the agreement in the Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed, the impugned order is set a side and it is directed that lower Court will order non-applicant to file the agreement (contract) dated 20.12.1968 in accordance with law. No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the Case. 1977 JLJ 467 relied on. Revision partly allowed.