JUDGMENT B. D. Aggrawal, J. - These connected appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, arise against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Dehradun, dated 28th November, 1977. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of financing purchase of motor vehicles on hire purchase basis. Gyan Singh Bagga is the managing partner thereof. In each of the two suits giving rise to these appeals the defendant No. 1 appellant entered into hire purchase agreement with the plaintiff - respondent in respect of certain motor vehicles. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3/respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantors. The agreement contains, inter alia arbitration clause. According to the plaintiff's case, upon adjustment of the amount fetched in consequence of the surrender made of the motor vehicles by the defendant No. 1, there was certain amount outstanding against the defendant No. 1 in both the suits. The liability of the other defendants in joint and several. In terms of the arbitration clause the plaintiff - respondent initiated proceedings under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, which was contested by the defendant No. 1 on ground principally that there was no such agreement entered into. He pleaded that his signatures had been obtained on black papers and these have been forged to constitute hire purchase agreements. It was denied by him that he had surrendered the motor, vehicles to the plaintiff as claimed by the latter. Upon consideration of the evidence the court below came to the finding that the agreement of hire purchase containing the arbitration clause in both the suit was duly entered into and the plaintiff is entitled to invoke Section 20 aforementioned. Reference has accordingly been made to the arbitrator, whose name also finds place in the arbitration clause agreed between the parties. Aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 preferred these appeals, which were heard together. The chief question agitated for the defendant No. 1 - appellant has been that he did not enter into the hire purchase agreement relied upon by the plaintiff - respondent. In proof of the agreement the plaintiff examined Gyan Singh Bagga, the Managing Director, who testified that the two agreements were duly executed in his immediate presence. He has given the details thereof and nothing could be elicited in cross-examination to shake his testimony. In proof of the agreement the plaintiff examined Gyan Singh Bagga, the Managing Director, who testified that the two agreements were duly executed in his immediate presence. He has given the details thereof and nothing could be elicited in cross-examination to shake his testimony. The subsequent conduct of the parties strongly corroborates his averments. The defendant No. 1 evaded answer when he was questioned in regard to it. Gyan Singh Bagga also specified that the contents of the agreement had been explained to the defendant before he executed the same. According to the defendant No. 1 himself the guarantors are persons of confidence of the plaintiff. Evidence on the point having been adduced on both sides, the question of onus becomes academic and the court below may not be to unjustified in reaching the findings on this aspect as it did. Upon reference to the arbitration clause contained in the hire purchase agreement it will be noticed that it is very widely framed. The provision is that all questions and matters in difference between the parties or their representatives touching the construction of the agreement or any act or thing in regard to the rights, duties and obligations or their enforcement or performance including the failure to pay a claim arising out of or relating to the agreement or to the subject-matter thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitrator Sardar Daulat Singh Sethi, Dehradun or Sri R. L. Kapoor, Advocate, Dehradun, at the option of the party raising the question or matter in difference. It is manifest that this practically leaves nothing in respect of the agreement or arising in connection therewith which may not form the subject-matter of reference to arbitration. In order to adjudicate upon the claim set up by the plaintiff - respondent, the arbitrator has to look into the contents of the agreement of hire purchase and this suffices to say that the dispute or difference arises out of the agreement. The defendant No. 1 - appellant in this case not only did not pay the substantial amount claimed by the plaintiff as outstanding, but also denied his liability as is apparent from the stand taken by him, namely, that no such agreement even came into being. The plaintiff - respondent could, therefore, legitimately invoke Section 20 of the Arbitration Act to his aid. The plaintiff - respondent could, therefore, legitimately invoke Section 20 of the Arbitration Act to his aid. The reference directed by the court below is to Sardar Daulat Singh Sethi as opted by the plaintiff - respondent, which action is in terms of the arbitration clause aforementioned. Having regard to the discussion made in the above, these appeals are devoid of merits and are dismissed accordingly. Costs on parties. Appeal dismissed.