Mahesh Chandra ( 1 ) THE plaintiff, M/s Siddhu Construction Company, has filed this suit No. 827a of 1985 under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act against Y. W. C A. of Delhi on the allegations that the plaintiff had been engaged by the defendant to make additions and alterations to the Y. W. C. A. Hostel and to construct General Secretary s flat at the Y. W. C. A. Ashoka Road, New Delhi and a contract was entered into in this behalf; that the plaintiff completed the work and handed over the same to the defendant; that defendant has failed to make payment of sum of Rs. 3,46,412 00 to the plaintiff in spite of demand in this behalf and in spite of a legal notice dated 4th August, 1984; that Cl. 12 of the contract between the parties provided as under : "if any dispute, question, controversy shall, at any time, arise between the employer and the contractor relating to this contract, the matter in dispute shall be REFERRED TO to arbitrator under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, as amended from time to time. The employer and the contractor shall decide on a common arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding on both the parties. . . . . . . . . "that the plaintiff vide its notice dated 23rd March, 1985 offered to the defendant to refer the matter to arbitration and proposed the name of Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, 17, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi as common arbitrator; that the defendant did not agree to the sail proposal and rather disputed their liability and hence this suit for appointment of the arbitrator. ( 2 ) A perusal of the written statement of the defendant would show that in substance the defendant has not disputed the engagement of the plaintiff, or the terms of contract regarding arbitration, or even the claim of the plaintiff and non-payment thereof by the defendant, or the receipt of notice or its reply and the suit is rather being opposed on behalf of the defendant on the plea that the disputes which are sought to be REFERRED TO to arbitration have not been specified in the plaint. ( 3 ) UPON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Sultan Singh, J. vide orders dt. 4th April, 1986 : "1. ( 3 ) UPON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Sultan Singh, J. vide orders dt. 4th April, 1986 : "1. Wether the petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act discloses the alleged dispute ? If not to what effect ? 2. Relief. " ( 4 ) EVIDENCE has been recorded on affidavits and apart from the affidavits, documents Ex. P. 1 to P. 6 and Ex. R. 1 to R. 15 have been exhibited in this case. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me, 1 have come to the following findings : Issue No. 1 It has been contended in preliminary objection of the written statement that the petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable inasmuch as the disputes which are sought to be REFERRED TO to arbitrator have not been specified in the petition, I do not find force in this contention of the defendant. From the perusal of the plaint in the instant case I find that it has been specifically stated stated by the plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint that "the petitioner requested the respondent several times to make payment, but to no effect. the petitioner sent a notice, dated 20-6-84, under registered cover demanding a sum of Rs. 3,46,412 00 together with interest @ 18 percent per annum from the date of the certificates and also the increase in the labour rates, but to no effect. " It has similarly been contended in para 6 of the plaint that "again on 4th Aug. , 1984 the petitioner sent through his advocate a registered notice to the defendant asking them to settle his bills and pay the dues but to no effect". In para 7 of the plaint, it has been categorically brought out by the plaintiff that "the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 3,46,412 with interest @ 18 per cent per annum with. effect from 20th June, 1984". In the face of these clear submissions by the plaintiff, it would be difficult to accept that the plaintiff has not brought out the dispute in his plaint. 3,46,412 with interest @ 18 per cent per annum with. effect from 20th June, 1984". In the face of these clear submissions by the plaintiff, it would be difficult to accept that the plaintiff has not brought out the dispute in his plaint. The learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon M/s Rai Baliadur Basakha Singh and Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd. 1, in support of his contentions wherein it was held as under : "where an application for tiling arbitration agreement does not contain the particulars of items of disputes to be REFERRED TO, reference to arbitrator cannot be made. Plea that copies of notice and other documents accompanying the petition contain the particulars of dispute is not available as those documents do not form part of the petition. "however such is not the position in the case in hand. As brought out above, the dispute has been clearly spelt out in the plaint. No reference to documents need be made to gather the dispute in this case. A perusal of above ruling would show that it cannot be said that it is a rule of law which required that dispute should be precisely mentioned in tne plaint. It is rather a rule of prudence which requires it and consequently it should not be strictly construed, more so, if it has the effect of non-suiting the plaintiff. If dispute can be gathered from the plaint, it would be deemed to meet the requirements. There is no specific rule in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Arbitration Act which lays down the specific form in which the dispute is to be described in the plaint, and as such the pleadings also in the context need not be construed strictly. If the dispute can be gathered from a reading of the plaint, it would be enough for meeting the situation and requirement, if any of mentioning the dispute which is sought to be raised in this case. From the perusal of the paras 5, 6 and 7 of the plaint above REFERRED TO, it is clear that the plaintiff is raising the dispute with regard to payment of Rs. 3,46,412 together with interest @ 18 per cent per annum with effect from the date of the certificates in this suit which the defendant has not paid to the plaintiff. 3,46,412 together with interest @ 18 per cent per annum with effect from the date of the certificates in this suit which the defendant has not paid to the plaintiff. Reference to para 5 of the written statement would show that it has been admitted therein by the defendant that "the petitioner had sent a notice of demand dt. 20th June, 1984 to the defendant". The claim of the plaintiff has been denied in para 7 of the written statement wherein it has been stated by the defendant that it is however, denied that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,46,412 or any part thereof much less so with interest at any rate, particularly, at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, as claimed by the petitioner. Keeping in view these facts I find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the disputes which are sought to be REFERRED TO to arbitration have not been specified in the petition. The disputes have categorically been brought out in the plaint and consequently it cannot be said that the plaint under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act does not disclose disputes. This conclusion is confirmed from the perusal of the documents Ex. P. 1 to P. 6 and Ex. R. 1 to R. 15 as well. In view thereof Issue No. 1 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 ( 5 ) IN view of my findings upon Issue No. 1 read with Ex. P. I to P. 6 and R. I to R. 15. I hold that the plaintiff has established his case and as such the matter in dispute REFERRED TO to para 7 of the plaint is liable to be REFERRED TO to arbitration. ( 6 ) FOR my discussion and findings above, I allow this suit and direct that the matter is REFERRED TO to the sole arbitration of Shri Anup K. Trehan, Advocate, Chamber No. 432-433, High-Court Lawyers Chamber, New Delhi. The fee of the arbitrator is fixed at Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the plaintiff in the first instance which shall be cost in the proceedings. Let court notice be sent to the arbitrator.