JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate judge, Baripada, refusing to appoint an arbitrator* u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act ('Act for short). 2. The petitioner had entered into Agreement No. 2/ F2 of .1974-75 with opposite party No. 2 for executing the work of widening the pavements of N. H. No. 6 to 7-M for the value of Rs. 4,79,563.35. Although the work was completed, opposite party No 2 did not make correct measurements and did not take into account the petitioner's claim for, additional work done, but on 27-7-1978 the final bill was paid with an understanding that the disputed claim would be settled later. On 28-8-1978 opposite party No 2 refused to entertain the petitioner's claim on technical grounds. On 25-7-1981 the petitioner served a notice u/s 8(1) of the Act on opposite party No. 3 to appoint an Arbirator according to Clause 23 of the agreement. But as an Arbitrator was not appointed, the petitioner filed a petition u/s 8(2) in the learned Court below to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes relating to Agreement No. 2/F2 of 1974-75 of 4N. H. Division, Baripada. 3. Opposite party No. 2 in his counter stated that the petitioner did not raise a specific claim. His final bill was fully paid and there was no further claim in dispute. The petition was barred by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, no Arbitrator could be appointed u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. . 4. Two points were raised before the learned Subordinate judge. First, no specific claim having been raised by the petitioner, the petition, u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable and, second, the petition u/s 8(2) was barred by limitation under Art.' 137 of the Limitation Act. With regard to the first point, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner had raised claim arising out of the works contract. He further held that the petition u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, he rejected the petition and refused to appoint an Arbitrator, 5. The only question which was canvassed and arises for consideration in this civil revision is whether the petition u/s 8(2) is barred by limitation under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. 6. Accordingly, he rejected the petition and refused to appoint an Arbitrator, 5. The only question which was canvassed and arises for consideration in this civil revision is whether the petition u/s 8(2) is barred by limitation under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. 6. Application of Art. 137 of the limitation Act, which is the residury article to petitions u/s 8(2) is no longer res Integra. In The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma an earlier decision reported in Town Municipal, Council, Athani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli and Others etc. was overruled and it was held that the residuary article 137 applies to any petition or application filed under any Act, which necessarily includes a petition u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. Relying on the decision of the Kerafa State Electricity Board (supra) it was held in State of Rajasthan Vs. Mehta Chetan Das Kishandass, of the Limitation Act is applicable to petitions u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. An identical view was taken by this Court in 1984 (1) O. L. R 581 Ghanshyam Bahera r. Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation trough its Secretary and another, and in two unreported decisions in Civil Revision Nos. 465 & 469 of 1982, Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Irrigation Department and Ors. v. Birat Chandra Oagara and another, (decided on 15-7-1985) and Civil Revision Nos. 595 and 5% of 1982 State of Orissa and Ors. v. Anath Charan Swain and another, (decided on 24-7-1985). It is therefore, beyond any "pale of controversy that the residuary Art. 137 of the Limitation Act will govern petitions u/s 6(2) of the Arbitration Act. 7. While dealing with the question of limitation, the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that limitation for the petition u/s 6(2) of Arbitration Act commenced on 27-7-1978 and as the petition was filed on 23-12-1981, more than three years after, as prescribed in Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, the petition was barred by limitation Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while not disputing the applicability of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act to petitions u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, contended that the learned Subordinate judge had no jurisdiction to decide the point of limitation having already held earlier that the petitioner had a claim and a dispute fit for reference to the Arbitrator. It is only the Arbitrator, on appointment and after hearing both parties, would be competent to decide the point of limitation. The contention is not without substance. In 1984 (1) OLR 581 (supra), it was held that the point of limitation for a claim has to be decided by the Arbitrator, which means, if the Arbitrator will find, on hearing both parties, that the disputed claim is barred by limitation u/s 137 of the Limitation Act, he shall be free to refuse to make an award on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation. The Court cannot throw out the claim in limine on the ground that it is barred by limitation. In this case notice u/s 8(1) of the Arbitration Act was served on 25-7-1981 and according to the decisions of this Court, limitation began to run after expiry of 15 days thereafter. The petition u/s 8(2) was filed an 23-12-1981 and hence, according to Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, filing of the petition is not barred by limitation. So far as the petitioner's claim is concerned, it is for the Arbitrator to decide as to whether it is barred by limitation or not, In the aforesaid view of the matter, the learned Subordinate Judge did not exercise jurisdiction vested in him according to law and so in exercise of powers u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court has no other alternative than to vacate the impugned order of rejection of the petition u/s 8(2) of the Arbitration Act and to direct the learned Court below to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with Clause 23 of Agreement No. 2/F2 of 1974-75 of N. H. Division, Baripada. The parties shall appear before him on the 7th July, 1986 to receive directions. 8. In the result, the civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is vacated subject to the observations made above. Parties shall bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed