In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong in Misc CA 1 (T) 88 passed on 20.2.88 allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner passed in (Arb) Misc Case No 191 (T) 87. 2. Facts: The petitioner filed an application under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for short the 'Act' for appointment of an arbitrator in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. The case of the petitioner is that he carries on business of architect and planner under the name and style of M/S Raj Rewan & Kuldip Singh. An agreement was executed between the firm and the North Eastern Hill University (which I shall refer to as the 'NEHU') on 16.3.78 for preparing the master plans of the university complex, the detailed design of the staff, Hostel Complex, Academic Complex and Sport Complex as specified in the agreement. The contract was to be executed within a period of three (3) years. However the contract was renewed on 2 September 1985. The petitioner rendered his professional services as an architect for preparing the lay out plans, the detailed plans for buildings structures and other professional services. The NEHU not only denied the payment of Rs. 34,70,000/-to the petitioner but have threatened to rescind the agreement unilaterally and have proceeded to appoint another architect. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 21. 5. 86 rescinding the contract without any valid reason. In the event of such " attempted and illegal, mala fide and unilateral rescission of the contract before the settlement of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 12,SO,00,000/-towards the damages and thereby the petitioner shall be entitled to a total claim for Rs. 15,01,13,000/-. The petitioner issued various notices for appointment of an arbitrator by the Vice Chan­cellor, as provided under clause 33 of the agreement. As the Vice Chancellor of the NEHU has failed to appoint an arbitrator, the petitioner filed the application for the appointment of the arbitrator. The petitioner also filed application for temporary injunction under section 41 of the Act. The petitioner issued various notices for appointment of an arbitrator by the Vice Chan­cellor, as provided under clause 33 of the agreement. As the Vice Chancellor of the NEHU has failed to appoint an arbitrator, the petitioner filed the application for the appointment of the arbitrator. The petitioner also filed application for temporary injunction under section 41 of the Act. The Assistant to the Deputy Comm­issioner passed interim order ex-parte restraining the NEHU from appointing any architect and contractor, and any other architect or contractor, if appointed, from mendling with the execution of the work already being carried out and from carrying out any new work on the site. Being aggrieved by the interim order passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, the NEHU filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. The Additional Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner ' Hence this petition. 3. Mr. P. K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable as the order passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner was not an appealable one. 4. Section 41 of the Act provides : "Subject to the provisions of this Act and of rules made thereunder- (a) the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall apply to all proceedings before the Court and to all appeals, under this Act; and- (b) the Court shall have, for the purpose of, and in relation to, arbitration proceedings, the same power of making orders in respect of any of the matters set out in Second Schedule as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceed­ings before the Court; Provided that nothing in clause (b) shall be taken to prejudice any power which may be vested in an arbitrator or umpire for making orders with respect to any of such matters," A plain reading of section 41 (a) makes it clear that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The Court, therefore, shall have all the powers in respect of the arbitration proceeding pending before it as it has under the Code in respect of any other proceeding before it. The Court, therefore, shall have all the powers in respect of the arbitration proceeding pending before it as it has under the Code in respect of any other proceeding before it. Section 41 (b) read with para 4 of the Second Schedule, the Court also has the jurisdiction and power to make interim injunction or appointment of the receiver. Therefore, the injunction was passed by virtue of section 41 of the Act. Therefore, the order of injunction which was passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner was an order passed under the Act. 5. The next question which arises for consideration is whether such an order passed under section 41 of the Act is appealable. Section 39 of the Act runs : "(1) Appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order: An order - (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to finle an arbitration agreement; (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement; (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award : Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a Small Cause Court. (2) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court. 6. As already stated, the injunction order was passed under the Act. Such an order of injunction does not fall within any of the categories enumerated by/under section 39. Under section 39, no appeal shall lie from an order passed under the Act except as provided thereunder. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner is not appealable under the Act. 7. It is admitted at the bar that the Khasi Siemship (Adminis­tration of Justice) Order, 1950, for short the 'Order' is applicable to the present case. Under clause 24 of the 'Order' an appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Comm­issioner from the decision of the Assistant to the Deputy Comm­issioner. 7. It is admitted at the bar that the Khasi Siemship (Adminis­tration of Justice) Order, 1950, for short the 'Order' is applicable to the present case. Under clause 24 of the 'Order' an appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Comm­issioner from the decision of the Assistant to the Deputy Comm­issioner. Under clause 27 of the 'Order', the High Court may, on the application or otherwise, call for the proceedings of any case decided by the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner, his Assistant and Siem's Court and pass such orders as it may deem fit. 8. Under the 'Order' an appeal shall lie from the order of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. But, as already stated, an order of the interim injunction passed under section 41 of the Act is not appealable as it does not fall within any categories enumerated under section 39 of the Act. Clause 24 of the 'Order' is a general provision of appeal of the cases of civil nature excepting those cases expressly barred by any other law. Therefore, under clause 24 an appeal shall lie from the order of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner to the Additional Deputy Commissioner provided that the order is appealable. As already stated, the interim order passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner is not appealable , order and therefore, the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, i.e the appeal was not maintainable and the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner is of no consequence. 9. The next question which arises for consideration is whether this Court shall exercise its power under clause 27 of the 'Order'. The NEHU has filed an application for excercising the power of the High Court under clause 27, if this Court holds that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned counsel for the NEHU, has submitted that in view of the provision under clause 27 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the findings of the Assistant to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. Mr. P.K Goswami, the learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that appeal is to be withdrawn first and thereafter the application under clause 27 is to be filed. Mr. P.K Goswami, the learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that appeal is to be withdrawn first and thereafter the application under clause 27 is to be filed. It has already been held that the appeal was not maintainable and as such there was no appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner in the eye of the law. 9 A. The agreement was made on 16.3.78. Clause 37 provided that the contract was to be executed or to be performed, within the period of 3 years. However, it was extended till 1.9.88 (informally according to the NEHU). Mr. Rao has submitted that there is no subsisting contract to be performed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, Mr. Rao states at the bar that the NEHU shall appoint a competent arbitrator within a week if ordered by the Court. 10. Clause 33 of the agreement runs as follows : "In the event of any dispute, difference or question arising out or touching or concerning the agreement for the execution of the work herein specified, the same shall be referred to the Vice-Chancellor who shall appoint an Arbitrator subject to Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The decision of the Arbitrator thus appointed shall be final and binding on both the parties and shall be made Rule of Court of Law." 12. At this stage it will be helpful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Prafnlla Kumar Sanyal, AIR 1979 SC 1457 . In that case, the deed of agreement contained an arbitration clause which provided that except where otherwise provided in the contract, all the questions of dispute arising out of or relating to the contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the President of India and if he is unwilling to act, to the sole arbitration of some other person appointed by the arbitrator. On the facts of that case, the Supreme Court observed: It is desirable that the Court should consider the feasibility of appointing an arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement". 13. In the order of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, it is stated:" I find that all the 3 ingredients granting interim injunction are in favour of the petitioner and as such his prayer is allowed...". 13. In the order of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, it is stated:" I find that all the 3 ingredients granting interim injunction are in favour of the petitioner and as such his prayer is allowed...". But the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner has not given reasons for coming to the conclusion. That apart, the contract has been rescinded rightly or wrongly, and the facts stated in the application for appointment of an arbitrator indicates that the petitioner claims damages for the alleged breach of the contract. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the above decision of the Supreme Court, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court. Accordingly, the interim order passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the Vice Chancellor of the NEHU is directed to appoint an arbitrator within a week from today. If the Vice Chancellor does not appoint an arbitrator as directed, the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner shall proceed with the proceedings before him to appoint an arbitrator, and shall appoint an arbitrator in accordance with law. If the arbitrator is appointed by the Vice Chancellor, as directed, the proceeding of the appointment pending before the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong shall be terminated. With the above observation and directions the petition is disposed of. No costs.