ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are against the High Courts order in civil revisions arising out of the applications made by the respondent under Section 8 of the f Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the civil court was not willing to act as an arbitrator and that the appellant was not agreeable to the arbitration. 3. The claim of the respondent was admittedly above the sum of Rs 50,000. The question is whether GOMs No. 430 dated 24-10-1983 (Annexure A) at pp. 1 to 4 of the paper-books contains the arbitration 9 agreement for adjudication of claims up to Rs 50,000 by arbitration. The respondents contention is that according to the terms of that GOMs any dispute involving a claim above Rs 50,000 is to be adjudicated by the Judge of the court of competent jurisdiction acting as the arbitrator. According to the respondent, it is GOMs No. 430 dated 24-10-1983 alone which is material for the purpose since the subsequent GOMs No. 160 dated 1-6-1987 h is not mentioned in the agreement between the parties, wherein a clarification the earlier GOMs has been made. It is on this basis that the respondent aims adjudication of his claim by arbitration in terms of GOMs No. 430 deted 24-10-1983. 4. Having perused GOMs No. 430 dated 24-10-1983 we have no doubt at it clearly provides for arbitration in respect of claims only up to s 50,000 and not above that amount, making it clear in para 2 that the aims above Rs 50,000 are to be adjudicated by the court of competent risdiction. No doubt the expression "court of competent jurisdiction" is entioned under the head "panel of arbitrators" since the same para deals with "claims up to Rs 10,000" as well as "claims above Rs 10,000 and up to ; 50,000". That is however, an inartistic drafting of the GOMs but it cannot : construed to mean that claims above Rs 50,000 are to be adjudicated by arbitration in which the Judge presiding over the court of competent jurisdiction is to act as the arbitrator. It would be absurd to make such a Instruction of that part of the GOMs which would oblige the Judge to act as e arbitrator. It would be absurd to make such a Instruction of that part of the GOMs which would oblige the Judge to act as e arbitrator. The subsequent GOMs No. 160 dated 1-6-1987 merely clarifies this fact on account of an attempt by some contractors to misconstrue the earlier GOMs as clearly stated in the subsequent GOMs. The contention of the respondent is wholly untenable. 5. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders made by e High Court and the trial court are set aside resulting in rejection of the respondents applications made under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. No costs.