JUDGMENT S. C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal by the respondent under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order allowing objection to the award under Section 30 and 33 of the Act. 2. Claimant is a partnership firm carrying on business of building and engineering work. Pursuant to invitation of tender for construction of buildings claimant filed its tender which was accepted by the respondent and was intimated to the claimant on 24.5.80. Thereafter, a written agreement between the parties was executed. Agreement contains a clause for arbitration. While the contract was subsisting respondent cancelled the contract on 30.7.82 directing the applicants to be present on the spot to get the inventories of complete as well as incomplete work and the material lying on the site prepared jointly. In view of this cancellation claimant alleged that he suffered loss of Rs. 11,77,371.50 and in view of the arbitration clause filed an application under Section 20 of the Act on 3.12.82 which was registered as Suit No. 624 of 1982 in the Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Kanpur. In the said application prayer was made to make a reference to dispute between the parties for arbitration by Engineer Officer to be appointed by Chief Engineer according to the agreement and in case the Chief Engineer according to the agreement and in case the Chief Engineer MES Northern Zone fails to appoint an arbitrator then the Court itself may adjudicate upon the claim of Rs. 11,77,371.50 with interest at the rate of 18%, as detailed in the application under Section 20. In the written statement filed by the respondent it was stated that reference can be made for arbitration in terms of clause 70 of the agreement. On that basis learned Civil Judge allowed the application by order dated 3.12.82. After the order, on 3.3.83 Chief Engineer appointed an arbitrator and made a reference to him to adjudicate the claim of Rs. 11,67,371.50 with interest at the rate of 18% till date of payment and costs of the suit, as well as Government claim of Rs. 3,76,200/-. On receipt of notice claimant filed its statement of claim for Rs. 11,77,371.50 on 20.4.83. 11,67,371.50 with interest at the rate of 18% till date of payment and costs of the suit, as well as Government claim of Rs. 3,76,200/-. On receipt of notice claimant filed its statement of claim for Rs. 11,77,371.50 on 20.4.83. In his statement of claim no whisper was made as regards the government claim referred to in appendix to the letter of appointment of arbitrator by Chief Engineer though a copy of the letter with enclosure was sent to the claimant by registered post. Respondent in its statement of case while denying the claim of the claimant, claimed Rs. 3,76,200/- on account of excess cost recoverable from the contractor on account of completion of un-completed work and cost of reference. The claimant gave a reply to the statement of case filed by respondent before arbitrator challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to determine and adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondent and stated that arbitrator has jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate upon the disputes which were specified in Suit No. 624 of 1982. After considering material on record arbitrator did not accept any of claims of the claimant and allowed claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 2,59,963.16. By letter dated 29.6.84 arbitrator gave notice of making of the award to both the parties. On receipt of the said notice claimant filed objection under Section 30 and 33 of the Act praying to set aside the award and to appoint a person to act as sole arbitrator by removing the arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute which was referred as per order dated 3.12.82 in the suit. Respondent challenged all the ground raised in the objection. After hearing both the parties trial Court held that no reference having been made to the arbitrator to adjudicate claim of the respondent, it has no jurisdiction to interfere the same and in interfering the same natural justice is violated in giving opportunity to the claimant to contest the claim. On this finding award was set aside and the arbitrator was revoked. This is grievance of the claimant in this appeal. 3. Mr. On this finding award was set aside and the arbitrator was revoked. This is grievance of the claimant in this appeal. 3. Mr. Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel for the appellant referring to Section 20 (4) of the Act submitted that it was a duty of the Court to 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. The order in the application u/s. 20 of the Act clearly having indicated that the trial Court which delegates its function to the Chief Engineer to appoint an arbitrator and as such Chief Engineer having made a reference of the claim of Union Government to the arbitrator, it cannot be said that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, which would depend upon the facts and circumstances off each case and in the present case when arbitrator was appointed by Chief Engineer pursuant to an order of the Court where in the claim of the Union Government was also included, the arbitrator had jurisdiction to enter into such a dispute. Mr. Mohiley further contended that a copy of the letter appointing arbitrator by Chief Engineer was received by the claimant contractor with appendix enclosed which indicated that the claim of Union Government has been referred to arbitrator, Claimant did not raise any objection to it and accepting arbitrator and the reference made to it filed its statement and participated in the proceeding without raising any objection to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. 4. Mr. S. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent in this appeal on the other side submitted that there was no scope for a reference to the arbitrator in respect of claim of Union Government when the reference was made on the basis of the order u/s. 20 of the arbitration Act. In as much as Union Government neither prayed to the Court for referring its claim to the arbitrator nor filed any application for that purpose before the Court. In such circumstances Chief Engineer had no jurisdiction to refer the claim of the Union Government to arbitrator and trial court is correct in its finding that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of Union Government and gave an award in favour of the appellant. 5. In such circumstances Chief Engineer had no jurisdiction to refer the claim of the Union Government to arbitrator and trial court is correct in its finding that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of Union Government and gave an award in favour of the appellant. 5. For considering the merit of contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act is to be kept in mind, it is extracted hereinafter - (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) Whether 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) xxx xxx xxx 6. Perusal of the order of the learned trial judge in Suit No. 624 of 1982 clearly show that the learned Judge did not apply his judicial mind to decide the objection. There was not scope for directing Chief Engineer to appoint in arbitrator as per clause 17. Trial Court ought to have called upon the parties to agree to a person, for being appointed as arbitrator since in the arbitration clause there was no agreement of the parties for a named person either as professional designation or in official capacity to be appointed as arbitrator. Since the parties did not agree upon the arbitrator. Court was to appoint a person to be their arbitrator as provided u/s. 20(4) extracted above. For this purpose Court ought to have called upon the parties to submit panel of names and after hearing the parties court ought to have appointed an arbitrator and ought to have made the reference to arbitrator. There was no scope in the application under Section 20 of the Act to delegate the power of the court of Chief Engineer. Equally Court could not have made a reference beyond the claim indicated in the application u/s. 20 of the Act. Since there is no counter claim, arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain claim of the Union Government. We may observe that when application u/s. 20 of the Act is filed in court, trial court has to formulate the dispute and refer that dispute to the arbitrator for adjudication. 7. Since there is no counter claim, arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain claim of the Union Government. We may observe that when application u/s. 20 of the Act is filed in court, trial court has to formulate the dispute and refer that dispute to the arbitrator for adjudication. 7. In this case, however, parties have accepted the arbitrator who had been appointed by court and having participated in the proceeding it is of an academic interest to consider whether learned trial judge had jurisdiction to delegate his power to the Chief Engineer. For the purpose of this case it would be justified to hold that the arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer was accepted to be arbitrator appointed by the court, since at no stage the same was challenged. However, there is no scope for the court to refer the claim of Union Government for arbitration. Trial Court is correct in setting aside the award. 8. Mr. Ashok Mohiley had placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court K. V. George v. The Secretary to Govt. Water and Power Department (AIR 1990 Supreme Court 53), where it is observed in para 13 as below. - "It is duly of the Arbitrator while considering the claims of the appellant to consider also the counter claims made on behalf of the respondents and to make the award after considering both the claims and counter-claims ....... Observations in the decision are made on the facts and circumstances of that case. In the reported decision there was no application u/s. 20 of the Arbitration Act. Claim was filed before a named arbitrator by the contractor. Superintending Engineer also made a counter claim before him. In such circumstances arbitrator was required to deal with both the claims and counter claims together. Same would not be a position where arbitrator is appointed u/s. 20 of the Act. If an arbitrator would have been appointed u/s. 8 of the Act, the principle as observed in the aforesaid decision would have been applicable. Therefore, the decision is distinguishable on facts. 9. Before coming to a close, we may observe that the entire proceeding was based on confusion. From the stage of reference to arbitrator appellant was made to believe that its claim would be considered. Accordingly, it participated in the proceeding by challenging claim of the claimant and producing material in support of its own claim. 9. Before coming to a close, we may observe that the entire proceeding was based on confusion. From the stage of reference to arbitrator appellant was made to believe that its claim would be considered. Accordingly, it participated in the proceeding by challenging claim of the claimant and producing material in support of its own claim. If a suit is filed for the claim of the Union Government jurisdiction of limitation is 30 years. However, it is open to a party to raise question that the claim made by the opposite party is barred by limitation. We need not deal with the question since we accept the finding of the trial court that arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the Union Government. If and when a reference is made to arbitrator to adjudicate the claim of Union Government the claimant-respondent in this appeal can raise a question of limitation which will be decided on its own merits, taking note that the jurisdiction of limitation for a money claim by the Union Government is 30 days and provisions of the Limitation Act are made applicable to the proceeding u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 10. Next question for consideration is whether arbitrator has been rightly revoked or the same arbitrator should continue the proceeding afresh. The award is based on no reason. All the claim of the claimant have been turned down by the arbitrator. Request of the claimant for giving it opportunity to bring further material in support of the claim was turned down. In such circumstances where trial court exercised its discretion in revoking the arbitrator, we are not inclined to interfere with the same on the facts and circumstances of the case. As the matter stands there is no arbitrator. Reference to arbitrator is now pending. In such circumstances the trial court has to appoint an arbitrator. As we have already observed trial court should give opportunity to the parties to file panel of names of persons whom they consider to be fit for being appointed as arbitrator. Trial court shall consider the same and appoint a sole arbitrator. It goes without saying that parties intend as per agreement, that an Engineer to be the arbitrator. Trial court shall respect the intention of the parties as far as practicable. Trial court shall consider the same and appoint a sole arbitrator. It goes without saying that parties intend as per agreement, that an Engineer to be the arbitrator. Trial court shall respect the intention of the parties as far as practicable. If in the mean time claim of the Union Government is referred to arbitrator as per clause 17 of the agreement, trial court shall consider whether it is desirable to refer alongwith the dispute of the claimant, respondent in this appeal to such arbitrator on the same set of fact. Both the disputes can be effectively adjudicated upon. In result, subject to the aforesaid observation, there is no merit in this appeal which, accordingly, is dismissed. In peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.