( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 20th November, 1987 whereby the learned sub-Judge dismissed a petition of the appellant filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The impugned order, however, mentions that the petition was under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Mr. Mittal submits that it was in fact under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. ( 2 ) THE appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for purchase of certain property. This agreement was entered as far back as in July 1966. The agreed consideration was Rs. 12,000. On the date of the agreement the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 7000 and a further sum of Rs. 3000 was paid on 24th October, 1966. The possession of the property was given to the appellant. Nothing appears to have happened thereafter. A notice dated 29th October, 1970 was served on the owners to perform their part of the agreement to sell otherwise it was mentioned that steps would be taken for bringing a suit for specific performance of the contract. The agreement to sell contained an arbitration dame. It appears some time in October 1982 the appellant served a notice on the arbitrator to eater into the reference and to decide the disputes between the parties. It was on 6th October, 1982 that petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed. The learned sub-judge held that the petition was barred by limitation. He referred to Article 137 of the Limitation Act which applied to the case. Mr. Mittal contends that cause of action arose in 1982 when notice to the arbitrator was issued to enter into the reference. ( 3 ) I am afraid this is not correct statement of law. Cause of action arose when dispute arose. Then, Mr. Mittal says that the decision of this court referred to in the impugned order pertained to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. In a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, it is also governed by law of limitation. Admittedly, dispute arose as far back as in 1970 when notice dated 29th October, 1970 was served on the owners to perform their part of the agreement. To me it appears the petition was barred by limitation and was rightly dismissed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.