Short Note : 1. Briefly stated facts material for the disposal of this revision application are these. The non-applicant filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of the 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam against the State of Madhya Pradesh praying that the matter under dispute between the parties be referred to an Arbitrator. The matter was then referred to the Arbitration of the Revenue Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh, but inspite of repeated reminders the Arbitrator did not give his award. An application was, therefore, made under section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of another Arbitrator, which was allowed by the impugned order. Held : It is contended that the said application made under section 8 should not have been allowed inasmuch as notice of the application made under section 8 of the Arbitration Act was not served on the Government pleader but on his clerk and that the learned lower Court has erred in holding that the sole Arbitrator appointed by the parties failed either to proceed with the arbitration or neglected or refused to act as an Arbitrator. In my opinion, the aforesaid contentions are not at all tenable. From the lower Court's record it is evident that a number of adjournments were granted to enable the Arbitrator to give his award but the award was not given. In these circumstances the non-applicant made an application under section 8 of the Act and prayed that as the sole Arbitrator has both neglected and refused to make the award the Court may appoint another Arbitrator. It is not disputed that the award, as was expected from the Arbitrator, was not given despite repeated reminders. In these circumstances there was no option left with the Court but to appoint another Arbitrator as provided by section 8 of the Arbitration Act. In fact subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 3-3-1975 the Court has by another order dated 8-7-1975 appointed Shri G.L. Gupta, Advocate, as the sole Arbitrator for making the award on the dispute between the parties. In the aforesaid circumstances I find no justifiable ground for any interference with the impugned order. Revision dismissed.