Phukan, J.: - An agreement was entered into on 16. 3. 1945 between Government of Assam and Assam Valley Supply Syndicate, a partnership firm, appellant herein. By the aforesaid agreement the appellant was appointed as sole agent for distribution within the area specified in the schedule to the agreement of food stuffs imported by the State of Assam. The said agreement was in force upto 31. 3. 1946. 2. Disputes and difference arose between the parties. As clause 20 of the agreement provided for referring such disputes to a board of Arbitrators the State of Assam filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Asstt. District Judge, Gauhati which was registered as Title Suit Nos. 19 of 1969 and 28 of 1972. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record and contentions of the parties by the impugned judgment and order allowed the petition, directed the present appellant to file the agreement and also asked the parties to submit the names of Arbitrators as per clause for Arbitration. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the appellants has raised two points, namely, the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the State of Assam is barred by limitation and that as partnership firm was for a limited period and stood dissolved after expiry of the said period, the present petition is not maintainable. Mr. Bhattacharjee has also urged that most of the partners died, but the State did not take any steps to bring all the legal heirs of the partners into the record and as such the petition is abated. 4. The main contention of Mr. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate is that from the letters issued by the present appellants, namely, exhibits 5 & 7 the present petition is not barred by limitation. In the recent decision, the Apex Court has settled the period of limitation regarding a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. 4. The main contention of Mr. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate is that from the letters issued by the present appellants, namely, exhibits 5 & 7 the present petition is not barred by limitation. In the recent decision, the Apex Court has settled the period of limitation regarding a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. In Major (Retd.) Inter Singh Rekhi vs. Delhi Development Authority, (1988) 2 S. C. C. 338, it was held that the existence of dispute is essential for appointment of an arbitrator under section 8 or a reference under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to any application filed before a Court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. According to said Article the period of limitation is 3 years and starting point of the limitation is the date on which the right to apply accrues. Admittedly, the present petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed on 10. 5. 1969. The said petition does not contain the date on which disputes and differences arose between the parties. on 21. 5. 1970 a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C. P. C. was filed on behalf of respondent-State for amendment of the plaint i. e. the petition under section 20. From reading paragraph 2 (b) it appears that there were settlements between the parties in the year 1955, but there was an audit conducted on behalf of Auditor General of India and the said report was received by the Government on 11. 2. 1955. It is alleged that the settlement of 1955 was arrived at under mistake of facts and law and as such the State-respondent could not perform remaining part of the settlement arrived at in 1955 and the appellant were informed accordingly on 10. 6. 1965. In the said letter dated 10, 6. 65 in view of the special audit report, a counter claim was made by the State. Thus it appears that a state matter which was settled in the year 1955 was revived in 1965 i. e. after 10 years though audit report was received on 11. 5. 1955. That apart, from the said petition of the State-respondent it appears that on 12. 8. 65 the present appellant refused to refer the dispute raised by the respondent-State. Thus it appears that a state matter which was settled in the year 1955 was revived in 1965 i. e. after 10 years though audit report was received on 11. 5. 1955. That apart, from the said petition of the State-respondent it appears that on 12. 8. 65 the present appellant refused to refer the dispute raised by the respondent-State. Giving maximum benefit to the State, we find that limitation for the present purpose started from 12. 8. 65 and the petition ought to have been filed within 3 years from the above date i.e. within 11. 8. 1963. But as stated earlier, the present petition was filed on 10. 5. 1969. We are, therefore, constrained to hold in view of law laid down by the Apex Court that the present petition is barred by limitation. 5. We have perused exhibits 5 and 7 dated 5.6.66 and 30.9.67. By exhibit-5 the appellant drew the attention to the Chief Minister about the fact that though the Government agreed and admitted its liability 9 years back, the amount was not paid and accordingly requested the Chief Minister for his kind intervention. By exhibit - 9, the appellant requested the Secretary, Government of Assam to clear all pending bills and to settle the accounts. From these two letters we cannot come to any finding that disputes and differences between the parties arose on a subsequent date and as such contention of Mr. Sharma has no force. On perusal of the partnership deed, exhibit - D we are satisfied that the firm was established on 25. 3. 44 and duration of the said firm was up-to 31. 3. 1947. In other words the partnership of the firm stood dissolved on the expiry of the duration of the partnership firm. There is no dispute that respondents Nos. 4, 5, 7,9 and 10 were partners of the firm and who are added subsequently as opp. party to the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the State died long before and their legal heirs have not brought into record on these two grounds we are satisfied that the State cannot persue the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act against the appellant firm. 6. party to the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the State died long before and their legal heirs have not brought into record on these two grounds we are satisfied that the State cannot persue the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act against the appellant firm. 6. From what has been stated above, we hold that the application filed by the State-respondent under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is barred by limitation and is also not maintainable. 7. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to tsar their own costs.