G. R. LUTHRA ( 1 ) THE present petition is under Sections 8 and 20 of Indian Arbitration Act 1940 for filing of agreement and making an appointment of an arbitrator. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, as he alleges, entered into a contract with the respondents for construction of "construction of Load Despatch Centre for N. R. E. B. at Katwaria Sarai. New Delhi. " There was an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is alleged bv the petitioner that disputes arose on account of which he sent a letter to the Chief Engineer Construction Zone Central Works Department New Delhi to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. He has attached a copy of the letter as annexure along with the petition. ( 3 ) THE petition was contested by the respondents. They inter alia pleaded that the petition was not legally maintainable because it did not detail disputes which had arisen between the parties. Following preliminary issue was framed: 1. Is the petition as framed legally maintainable? Issue ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents relies upon a judgment of Mr. Justice Sultan Singh in Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh and Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd. AIR 1979 Delhi 220. It is laid down that if disputes are not mentioned in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act same is not maintainable. In that case also it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a notice dated 22nd April, 1975 was served upon the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent together with items in dispute and requiring appointment of arbitrator. Copy of that notice was attached with the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in that case. It was held that the said documents could not be taken as part of the pleadings and that disputes between the parties must be specified in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act itself. Following observations were made in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment: "without pleadings the petitioner is not entitled to allege what are the disputes which it seeks to refer to the arbitrator I, therefore, hold that in the absence of allegations of disputes in the petition no reference can be made to the arbitrator. Following observations were made in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment: "without pleadings the petitioner is not entitled to allege what are the disputes which it seeks to refer to the arbitrator I, therefore, hold that in the absence of allegations of disputes in the petition no reference can be made to the arbitrator. Section 20 (1) of the Arbitration Act requires that when differences have arisen between the parties to the agreement then the same may be subiect matter of a petition under Section 20 of the Act. The Court has to determine whether the differences arising between the parties are covered by the agreement. I am, thus, of the view that pleadings of disputes or differences is necessary in a petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. In the absence of such a pleading, the application cannot be said to be in accordance with law. I, therefore, hold that non-pleading of the disputes in the petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act is sufficient ground for dismissal of the application. " ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said authority is distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case copy of the letter requiring the Chief Engineer to appoint arbitrator has been annexed as Annexure 7 (mentioned in para 6 of the petition) and it has been specifically mentioned that such an annexure be taken as part of pleadings which was not the case before Justice Sultan Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon assertions in the replication that said copy of the letter should be read as part of the pleadings. Learned counsel contended that it was not the case before Mr. Justice Sultan Singh. However, to my mind there is no point of distinction. There also copy of the notice, along with which there was list of disputes, was attached with the petition and the same had been referred to in the petition itself. It was unequivocally laid down (see portion to reproduce above) that disputes must be mentioned in the petition under Section 20 itself and no other document can be looked into for finding out disoutes. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench iudgment of this court in Union of India v. Vijay Construction Co. 1981 Rajdhani LR 215: (AIR 1981 Delhi 193 ). ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench iudgment of this court in Union of India v. Vijay Construction Co. 1981 Rajdhani LR 215: (AIR 1981 Delhi 193 ). It is contended by the learned counsel that in that case also disputes were not detailed in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. However, it is clear from the iudgment itself that the point whether disputes had been mentioned in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act or not and whether such a petition was legally maintainable or not was not involved. Only point involved was one of limitation Hence that authority is of no help to the learned counsel. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid authority of Mr. Justice Sultan Singh of this court which is binding I decide the issue in favour of the respondent. As a result of this finding the present petition is dismissed. On the basis of I. A. No. 1373 of 1981 a temporary injunction was issued. That application is also dismissed in view of the fall of the main petition and the injunction already granted is vacated.