JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 5th June, 1973, passed by Thakur Chet Ram Judge of this Court on an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act by which the said application of the present appellant was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the present appellant filed an application under section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act on the grounds that the appellant, while carrying on the business of a forest lessee at Yamunanagar, purchased lot No. 18/62-64 of Sarain Range, Chopal Division, Sirmur Circle. H. P. for a sum of Rs. 40,500/- and an agreement regarding this auction purchase was executed between the parties. It was further alleged that the forest covered by the above lot could not be worked out by the appellant as he was busy in working out certain other lots during 1962-63 and that later on the forest covered by the above lot was converted into timber and was brought to launching depot at Khad-Nallah. It was further alleged by the appellant that the timber of the lot had been stacked at the launching depot and was to be floated in two Ghals, the first Ghal consisting of 10054 scants was floated down at the end of the years 1965 but the second Ghal consisting of 7844 scants was still lying stacked at Bhat-Nallah. It is next alleged that when the appellant started wet slide and floating work of timber in Bhat-Mallah, the forest authorities took some revengeful attitude which was against the river rules and when the matter was brought to the notice of the forest authorities vide letter of the appellant dated 16th August, 1965 to the effect that the department had illegally stopped the Ghal, the department paid no heed. The appellant further asserted that the market value of the floated timber was over Rs. 75,000/-. The appellant further asserted that when the timber of the first Ghal reached the boom and then the appellant approached the forest authority to give him the facility of 20% free release of timber, as such a facility was being given generally, but instead of giving him the facility, the department appropriated Rs. 30,000/- towards the timber of lot No. 20/64-65 of Chopal Division and required the appellant to deposit Rs. 19,900/-. 30,000/- towards the timber of lot No. 20/64-65 of Chopal Division and required the appellant to deposit Rs. 19,900/-. The appellant asserted that the contract of lot No. 10/64-65 was quite separate and it could not be tagged with the disputed lot and that due to this unjust and illegal attitude of the forest department the appellant has suffered financial loss and he could not float the second Ghal comprising of 7844 scants stacked at Bhat-Nallah. It is further alleged that the appellant was prevented from floating this lot as the department claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of their alleged dues with respect to some other contract. The appellant further alleged that he suffered a loss of not less than Rs. 70,000/- due to this illegal act of the forest Department and the appellant was entitled to claim the alleged loss from the respondents and that the dispute existed between the parties which had to be settled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement through an Arbitrator. The appellant further alleged that instead of settling the claim of the appellant, the forest department claimed Rs. 14081-72 paise from the appellant which demand of the respondent was altogether unjustified and the appellant did not concede this demand and so there is a subsisting dispute regarding this amount. On these allegations the appellant filed the above application on 3rd October, 1972 seeking the relief that the agreement be got filed in the court and that the disputes between the parties be referred to the Arbitrator named in the agreement or otherwise and if the parties cannot agree upon the Arbitrator, then an Arbitrator be appointed by the Court to settle the dispute. 3. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of the respondents and the respondents in their reply contested the application. It was, however, admitted that the work in the forests of lot No. 18/62-61 was given to the appellant but the appellant could not complete this work in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 3. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of the respondents and the respondents in their reply contested the application. It was, however, admitted that the work in the forests of lot No. 18/62-61 was given to the appellant but the appellant could not complete this work in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It was further asserted that the appellant had not been making adequate arrangements for the floating of the Ghal and that he was being served with notices by the forest department and that due to the negligence in floating the Ghal by the appellant, hinderances were created in the smooth floating and operating of the Ghal of the other persons. It was further asserted that the appellant failed to launch the timber of the second Ghal due to his own mismanagement and financial difficulties. The respondents alleged that there were no disputes between the parties as long as the work of the petitioner in the lot was in progress but the latter raised untenable disputes in order to delay the payment of the government dues. It was further alleged that the demand by the respondents on account of the interest is genuine and the claim of the appellant is false and illusory and that there was no occasion to invoke the provisions of clause 29 of the agreement deed, 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was struck;— 1. Whether any dispute has arisen between the parties which may be referred to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 29 of the agreement ? 5. The onus of this issue was placed upon the parties. 6. To prove this issue the plaintiff appeared himself in the witness box on 5th March, 1973 as his own witness and closed his evidence after requesting the court that the respondent be asked to produce the original agreement. 7. On behalf of the respondents Shri I. D. Sharma, Divisional Forest Officer Chopal appeared on 4th April, 1973 as a witness and during the course of his statement the original agreement was also produced. 8. 7. On behalf of the respondents Shri I. D. Sharma, Divisional Forest Officer Chopal appeared on 4th April, 1973 as a witness and during the course of his statement the original agreement was also produced. 8. The single Judge of this court after considering the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to show that there was any violation of any of the terms of the agreement and much less of river rules which may require a reference in terms of clause 29 of the agreement to the Arbitrator and as such the issue was decided against the appellant with the result that the application of the appellant was dismissed. 9. In this appeal Shri Chhabil pass, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant has contested the finding of the learned single Judge and has contended that the same is liable to be set aside. He has referred to section 20 of the Arbitration Act and to the pleadings of the parties and the statements of P. W. 1 and R. W. 1 and has contended that the appellant has definitely claimed a sum of about Rs. 70,000/- from the respondents and that the respondents disputed their liability to pay this amount to the appellant. It was further contended that the respondents had claimed a sum of Rs. 1408i-22 paise and that a notice of demand for this amount had been sent to the appellant by the respondents and that the appellant does not admit his liability to pay this amount. According to the appellants contentions the dispute between the parties had existed with respect to the two sums referred to above and that these disputes arise out of the agreement entered into between the parties with respect to lot No. 18/62-64, Chopal. It was further contended by the appellants counsel that according to clause 29 of the agreement, the above mentioned dispute has to be referred to an Arbitrator and as such it was contended that the provisions of section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act are applicable to the facts of the present case and that the application of the appellant should have been allowed. 10. Shri H. K. Paul appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that in fact there are no subsisting disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement. 10. Shri H. K. Paul appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that in fact there are no subsisting disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement. The contention of the respondents counsel is that the appellant never made a demand for Rs. 70,000/- and as such there is no question of any dispute between the parties regarding this amount. So far as the next amount of Rs. 14081-22 paise is concerned, the learned counsel contended that the amount which is in fact due from the appellant is Rs. 10449-55 paise as has been stated by R. W. 1 Shri I. D. Sharma, and that for this amount a demand notice has already been issued to the appellant through the Collector. It was contended by the learned counsel that there is no subsisting dispute for the said amount between the parties and that the respondents do pot admit that there is any subsisting dispute. 11. Another contention raised by the respondents counsel is that before filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant should have issued a notice under section 80, C. P. C. and that the said application is not legally maintainable and should have been dismissed on this ground alone because application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is to be treated as a suit. 12. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. 13. Before allowing a relief to an applicant under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 4 conditions have to be satisfied by the applicant;— (1) that he has entered into an arbitration agreement with some person or persons. (2) that the agreement has been entered before the institution of any suit with respect to the subject matter of the agreement or any part of it. (3) that a difference has arisen between the parties to which the agreement applies. (4) that the court to which an application is made had the jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates. 14. In the present case we have to scrutinise as to whether the above mentioned four conditions have been complied with by the appellant or not. 15. (4) that the court to which an application is made had the jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates. 14. In the present case we have to scrutinise as to whether the above mentioned four conditions have been complied with by the appellant or not. 15. So far as the first condition is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement and that the agreement was reduced to writing on 16th February, 1962. The original agreement was placed on record by Shri L D. Sharma, D. F. O. Chopal who appeared as R. W. 1 on 4-4-1973. A perusal of the agreement shows that under clause 29 the disputes between the parties regarding the contract in dispute are to be referred to the Arbitrator. As such, the first condition that the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement stands fulfilled. 16. Tha second condition that the said agreement with respect to the disputed lot No. 18/62-64 has been entered before the institution of any suit, is also not disputed. The fourth condition that the court in which the application under section 20 was filed had jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates is also not disputed. Hence conditions No. 1, 2 and 4 are complied with. 17. The only dispute between the parties is that as to whether a difference has arisen between the parties to which the agreement applies or not. As already stated, the contention of the appellant is that there is a dispute regarding two amounts, that is, firstly, an amount of about Rs. 70,000/- which is claimed by the appellant from the respondents and to which the respondents deny their liability and the secondly about the amount of Rs. 14081-22 paise which is demanded by the respondents from the appellant and to which the appellant denies his liability for payment, ft is also admitted that the above said two amounts are disputed and they pertain to the agreement in question or in short, the dispute between the parties-has arisen out of the terms and conditions of the agreement with respect to the lot No. 18/62-64 of Sarain Range of Chopal Forest Division. The appellant while appearing in the witness box has clearly stated that he made a demand for the payment of Rs. 70,000/-from the forest department and that there is no amount of Rs. The appellant while appearing in the witness box has clearly stated that he made a demand for the payment of Rs. 70,000/-from the forest department and that there is no amount of Rs. 14081-22 paise of the forest department due from him and he has further stated that regarding these two amounts there are existing disputes between the parties. He has further stated that without looking into the records which had not been brought by him in the court, he could not state as to when he made the demand for the payment of Rs. 70,000/-. It is further stated by the appellant that the forest department had put some impediments and due to that reason he could not take the advantage of the facility which was provided to the contractors generally. 18. Reading the statement of the appellant as a whole, the irresistable conclusion is that there are subsisting disputes regarding two amounts between the parties and that these disputes arise out of the compliance or non-compliance of the conditions of the agreement entered between the parties with respect to lot No. 18/62-64 of Sarain Range. 19. Shri I. D, Sharma, D. F. O. Chopal appeared as R. W. 1 and he has stated that as the work of the appellant was slow, therefore, three extensions were given to him for the execution of the work and that disputes which have been mentioned in the petition do not arise out of the agreement and that the forest department has to recover Rs. 10400/- and some odd amount on account of interest on belated payments. It is further stated by Shri I. D. Sharma that the appellant never launched his 7844 scants of the second Ghal and that the department does not admit the claim of the appellant for Rs. 70,000/- as the same was never put up to the department with respect to the price of 7844 scants. Shri Sharma has also stated that the appellant had not given anything in writing with respect to his liability to pay or not to pay Rs. 10449-55 paise and that this was the actual amount due from the appellant. It is also admitted by Shri Sharma that a demand notice of Rs. 14,000/- and odd amount was issued to the appellant by mistake and that the actual amount due from the appellant was Rs. 10449-55 paise only. 20. 10449-55 paise and that this was the actual amount due from the appellant. It is also admitted by Shri Sharma that a demand notice of Rs. 14,000/- and odd amount was issued to the appellant by mistake and that the actual amount due from the appellant was Rs. 10449-55 paise only. 20. It is the admitted case of the parties that the above said two amounts pertained to the matters which arise out of the agreement entered into between the parties and the fact as to whether these two amounts are actually due or not can only be decided by an Arbitrator under clause 29 of the agreement. This court while deciding an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not to look into the truth or otherwise of the claims made by either party and once a claim falling within the purview of the agreement is made by one party and denied by the other, then definitely the matter is a disputed matter which has to be adjudicated through an Arbitrator under the terms and conditions as laid down in clause 29 of the agreement. The learned single judge has in fact tried to emphasise the fact that the claim of the appellant for Rs. 70,000/- is frivolous one and is a tall claim and that the appellant has not been able to substantiate this claim, similarly, with respect to the other amount, the learned Single Judge has held that as the appellant has not admitted or denied his liability to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and odd in writing, therefore, the said claim cannot be said to be a disputed claim. 21. We have not been able to find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning of the learned ^ingle Judge and in our opinion if once a claim is made and the said claim is denied by the other side, then definitely the matter is a disputed matter and if it arises out of the subject matter of the agreement, then it can safely be said that a difference has arisen between the parties to which the agreement applies. The truthfulness, falsity or the genuineness of the claim which is in dispute has to be adjudicated by the proper forum, that is, the Arbitrator and not in an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act where the only matter to be decided is that there is the existence of a disputed claim. The parties can very easily prove before the Arbitrator by adducing evidence that the claim of either party is false, genuine or true or otherwise barred from being enforced by any provisions of law. 22. In view of the above discussion, disagreeing with the findings of the learned Single Judge on this issue, we hold that there is a dispute between the parties which requires a reference to an Arbitrator. 23. So far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that a notice under section 80 C. P. C is essential, is concerned, we have not been able to agree with this contention. It is true that under section 20 (2) of the Arbitration Act, an application under section 20 is to be numbered and registered as a suit but this is only a ministerial act. It cannot have the effect of converting the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act into a suit within the contemplation of section 80 C. P. C. As is apparent from the heading of section 20 of the Arbitration Act, an application and not a suit is required to be filed under that provision. Even in reply to application under section 20 Arbitration Act no such objection was taken by the respondent. 24. In view of the above discussion, this contention of the respondents counsel has no force and is repelled. 25. As a result of the above findings, the present appeal is accepted and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th June, 1973 is set aside and the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellant is accepted. The agreement has already been filed in the court and the disputes between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator as provided in clause 29 of the Arbitration clause. 26. The agreement has already been filed in the court and the disputes between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator as provided in clause 29 of the Arbitration clause. 26. The Deputy Commissioner Sirmur District shall act as an Arbitrator as agreed upon in clause 29 of the agreement and the following matters shall be referred to him;— (1) Whether the petitioner appellant is entitled to the market value of 7844 scants of timber as claimed by him? (2) If the petitioner appellant is entitled to the market value, to what amount is the petitioner entitled. (3) Whether the respondents are entitled to Rs. 10449-55 paise as claimed by them from the petitioner appellant? 27. The case be listed for taking further proceedings in accordance with law before a Single Judge. Order accordingly. -