JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - This appeal u/s 39 of the Arbitration Act seeks to challenge the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 13-11-1980 by which he has allowed an application u/s 8(2) read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and has directed the Appellants to file the arbitration agreement for the purpose of making a reference of the dispute for adjudication by an arbitrator. 2. Two pointed contentions have been raised, namely: (1) The Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bhubaneswar is not the appropriate Court to entertain the matter in view of the fact that an earlier dispute had been raised and had been handled by the Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar. Reliance is placed on Section 31(4) of the Act in support of the contention. (2) The subject-matter of the present dispute was verily the subject matter of the earlier dispute and as such a fresh dispute is not entertainable. 3. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Additional Government Advocate relies upon the second aspect of his submission more than the first one. According to him, the statement of the claimant in paragraph 3 of his application clinches the question as to whether the present dispute was not a part of the earlier dispute. Counsel for both sides agree that the 21st bill was the final bill in regard to the work. In paragraph 3 of the application it has been stated: As per the agreement item No. 2, the claimant was to do 1,93,897 cum of earth work at the rate of Rs. 400/- per cum. The claimant has done 1,56,825.13 cum of earth work as per 20th R/A bill raid in Division voucher No. 98 dated 26-3-1974 and is claiming a rate of Rs. 1200/- per cum. of earth work beyond 40,000 cum. As per 21st and final bill, the earth work quantity is 1,24,294:S6 cum. x x x In paragraph 4 it has been stated: That the discrepancy in the earth work at the 20th running bill and the disputed 21st final bill as mentioned in the award of the Hon'ble Arbitrator was based on the submission of the Executive Engineer, R.E. Division, Keonjhar. x x x In paragraph 4 it has been stated: That the discrepancy in the earth work at the 20th running bill and the disputed 21st final bill as mentioned in the award of the Hon'ble Arbitrator was based on the submission of the Executive Engineer, R.E. Division, Keonjhar. On the basis of these statements the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the 21st bill, which is the final bill, was also the subject matter of the award on the earlier occasion. The award or any other material connected with it to show what exactly was the subject matter on the earlier occasion was not before the Court. The present contention is grounded upon the plea in the written statement that the present claim was covered by the earlier claim. I do not think, merely on the assertion in the written statement, the point can De taken to have been established. Ultimately, it is a factual dispute. What has been stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 can very well go with the position that reference to the 21st bill; which is the final bill, was being made to show the gap, i.e. the extent of dispute, and did not amount to an admission that the present dispute was covered by the earlier dispute. The better way to deal with the question raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate would be to leave it open to the arbitrator to examine whether the present claim was the subject matter of the earlier claim and had beep disposed of by the award. Both parties should be given opportunity to satisfy the arbitrator as to the tenability of this plea as a fact and the arbitrator would do well to deal with this matter first before getting into examination of the merit of the claim now raised. 4. The first contention, as already pointed out, is based upon the provision of Section 31(4) of the Act which makes provision in the following way: Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force wherein any reference any application under this Act has been made in a Court competent to entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. The earlier dispute which was handled by the Subordinate Judge at Keonjhar was upto the 20th bill relating to the work. The present dispute as claimed by the claimant arises out of the 21st bill which is the final bill. Sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act lays emphasis upon the reference and makes provision that all subsequent matters relating to the disputes referred must be handled by one and the same Court. If a second reference lies, it would certainly be an independent reference and if the Court at Bhubaneswar would have otherwise jurisdiction to entertain the matter, it would not be lost on account of Sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act. I would accordingly negative the first contention. 5. The appeal fails and is dismissed subject to the observation made above in regard to the second contention. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed