JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is petitioner in this Civil Revision. 2. Petitioner filed an application invoking power of Court u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') for filing of the agreement and to refer the dispute to an arbitrator to be appointed by Court. Case of petitioner is that parties entered into agreement in writing on 25-10-1969 far carrying on partnership business where there is an arbitration clause to refer disputes to arbitration. 3. Opposite parties contested the application jointly. White accepting the business, their case was that there is no written clause of arbitration and they being ladies not knowing English do not know the contents of the document. 4. Since plaintiff and defendants both denied to have possessed the original agreement, plaintiff took steps to produce the copy of the agreement in possession of Income Tax Department. On 31-12-1982 Income Tax Officer to whom summons had been issued prayed for attending Court on the next date. Order was passed to the following effect : "...His presence in Court is not necessary. But production of copy of the partnership deed is necessary in this case as both the parties to the suit denied to have retained the original partnership deed. In the above circumstances, plaintiff is directed to take fresh step to-day for production of the copy of partnership deed..." Ultimately, a clerk of the Income Tax Department was examined and certified copy of the partnership deed went to record on explanation that though the Original deed was verified at the time of assessment, the copy is available on record and he cannot say to whom the Original was returned. Thereafter other witnesses were examined by parties. On 11-5-1984, suit was decreed on contest against defendant. Defendants were directed to produce the original partnership deed. 5. On 16-7-1984 defendants filed a memorandum stating that original deed of partnership is with plaintiff. Since there was no appearance for plaintiff, trial Court directed plaintiff to produce the original in view of statement of defendants in the memorandum. On 9-8-1984 trial Court called upon parties to produce the original or intimate where it is and till then no reference can be made to arbitrator Plaintiff filed a petition supported by affidavit on 28 8-1984. Suit remained at that stage when plaintiff filed an application on 19-10-1990 for appointing an arbitrator. On 9-8-1984 trial Court called upon parties to produce the original or intimate where it is and till then no reference can be made to arbitrator Plaintiff filed a petition supported by affidavit on 28 8-1984. Suit remained at that stage when plaintiff filed an application on 19-10-1990 for appointing an arbitrator. Impugned order has been passed rejecting the application. This is grievance of plaintiff. 6. Trial Court examined whether an arbitrator can be appointed on basis of certified copy of the partnership agreement containing arbitration clause. It held that the certified copy does not bear the signature of parties and on that basis reference cannot be made. 7. There being no dispute that stages upto Sub-section (3) of Section 20 have been satisfied, only question for consideration is whether Section 20(4) of the Act is satisfied. It reads as follows : "20. Application to file in Court arbitration agreement-- (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx (4) Where no sufficient cause is shown, the Court shall order the agreement to be filed, and shall make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties whether in the agreement or otherwise,"or where the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, to an arbitrator appointed by the Court. (5) xx xx xx 8. Rightly or wrongly trial Court had decreed the suit on 11-5-1984. An appeal lies under Sec, 39(iv) of the Act against the said order. Defendants have not filed the appeal and it has become final. There is no scope for re-opening the same. Trial Court thereafter has no option to refuse to appoint an arbitrator to comply with later part of Section 20(4) of the Act. Impugned order is vulnerable and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 9. Mr. Lokesh Roy, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even without filing the original arbitration agreement, a direction can be given by a trial Court for appointment of an arbitrator u/s 20(4) of the Act. He relied upon a decision reported in 1973 (I) CWR 949 (Orissa Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Chandan Lal Agarwala) where it has been held by the Division Bench that the agreement is not necessary. It has been observed : "The next point urged by Mr. He relied upon a decision reported in 1973 (I) CWR 949 (Orissa Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Chandan Lal Agarwala) where it has been held by the Division Bench that the agreement is not necessary. It has been observed : "The next point urged by Mr. Mohanty is that when the arbitration agreement itself was with the respondent, an application u/s 20 of the Act could not have been filed asking the Court below for an order for filing of the agreement. Here also we must say that the point raised by Mr. Mohanty is without any substance. The word filed' on the section is not used in the sense that the written agreement must be physically produced in Court before it can be accepted or ordered to be acted upon. Even a party who is in possession of the arbitration agreement is competent to file an application u/s 20 of the Act praying for a direction or the Court to file the agreement. The intention of Section 20 is that before the Court takes recourse to the procedure laid down in Section 20(3), it has to be satisfied about the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, and hence, is to direct filing of the agreement. If the point urged by Mr. Mohanty is accepted, a party who is in possession of the arbitration agreement cannot under any circumstance file an application u/s 20 of the Act. This can never be the intention of the law. The language used in Section 20(1) of the Act does not admit of the interpretation given by Mr. Mohanty". 10. Mr. Lokesh Roy has relied upon observations of another Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in ILR 1972 784 (M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Orissa State Electricity Board) where scope of Section 20 of the Act was considered. It has been observed therein : "It is well settled that the scope of enquiry u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act is a limited one. In dealing with an application under this section, ail that the Court has to satisfy himself about, is whether there is a written agreement between the parties which is valid and subsisting and which has been executed before filing of any suit and that the disputes have arisen with regard to the subject-matter of the agreement and are within his jurisdiction. Once the Court reaches this satisfaction he is bound to make a reference u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act. He is not concerned with the merits of the disputes." 11. Cumulative effect of these two decisions is that the Court considering an application to order filing of the agreement is to be satisfied that there is a written agreement for arbitration between the parties and disputes have arisen. Physical production of the agreement in Court is not necessary to order filing of agreement. 12. It is submitted by Mr. Roy relying upon the decision reported in AIR 1945 Lah 264 (Firm Duni Chand Ram Prakash through Mohan Lal v. Firm Prem Chand Maya Das through Maya Das) that a party to whom a direction has been given to file the Original agreement cannot withhold the same or frustrate the proceeding by avoiding the direction. If the party does not file the same, the proceeding shall continue. Extending the submission Mr. Roy submitted that for filing an application u/s 20 of the Act, the agreement is not required to accompany the application. It is enough to satisfy the Court that there is a written agreement for arbitration. Once Court has passed an order for filing the agreement, without the same being filed, proceeding shall continue. 13. Mr. G. N. Padhi, learned counsel for opp. party No. 2 submitted that the order passed by trial Court in the year 1884 ought to be considered in its right perspective. Where a written agreement is the basis for an application and the same is attested by witness said attestation ought to have been proved ; specially when the opposite parties are ladlies, who do not know English and also do not know signing. The document having been written in English, trial Court ought to have considered that fact when a document has been obtained from ladies. Submission of Mr. Padhi might have force if an appeal would have been filed against the order dated 11-5-1984. At a subsequent stage of the proceeding he cannot avoid the order unless it is a nullity. Mr. Padhi submitted that there was no necessity to prefer an appeal since the order would be operative on filing of the original agreement by the defendants as directed. So, the direction itself being not complied with, the order would not be capable of being worked out subsequently. Mr. Padhi submitted that there was no necessity to prefer an appeal since the order would be operative on filing of the original agreement by the defendants as directed. So, the direction itself being not complied with, the order would not be capable of being worked out subsequently. In view of decision in AIR 1945 Lah 264 (supra), submissions of Mr. Padhi has no force. 14. Opp. party No. 1 is dead. Her legal representatives have been substituted. However, notice on them has not been issued. Since a direction of the year 1984 has remained pending by virtue of the pendency of the Civil Revision, 1 heard the Civil Revision on merits as opp. party No. 2 and opp. party No. 1 were jointly contesting the proceeding in the trial Court. If, however, any of the legal representatives of opp. party No. 1 on whom notice has been served,is aggrieved, he can approach this Court to recall the order, if so advised. His grievance shall be considered notwithstanding the disposal of this Civil Revision and I make it clear that no notice to the petitioner or opp. party Nos. 2 and 3 shall be sent at that stage since opp. party No. 3 has remained ex parte despite valid service of notice and petitioner and opp. party No. 2 have appeared through learned counsel, 15. In result, this Civil Revision is allowed. Trial Court is directed to appoint an arbitrator at an early date in accordance with Section 20(4) of the Act and refer the dispute as provided under rules and the proforma under the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed