LOKESHWAR PRASAD ( 1 ) THE petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) with the prayer that the Hire Purchase Agreement dated the 8th April, 1986, containing arbitration clause, be ordered to be filed in the Court and the disputes/ differences between the parties, mentioned in the petition, be referred to the sole arbitrator Sh. Vikramjit Sen, Advocate. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement dated the 8th April, 1986 with respondent No. 1 as hirer and respondent No. 2 as a guarantor in respect of a Tata Diesel Truck, Model 1986, bearing registration No. KBF - 4995 (hereinafter referred to as the said vehicle ). Under the Hire Purchase Agreement the hirer was to pay to the owners at New Delhi a sum of Rs 68,713. 54 as initial payment by way of hire which was to belong to the owners and was not refundable under any circumstance by the owner to the hirer. In terms of the said Hire Purchase Agreement, respondent No. 1 agreed to pay 47 instalments of hire money (46 hire instalments of Rs 5. 300/- each and the last hire instalment of Rs 3,700/-), falling due on 7th of each month beginning from 7. 6. 86. The liability of respondent No. 2, the guarantor, in terms of the said agreement was co- extensive with that of respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was given the delivery/ possession of the said vehicle. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that respondent No. 1 paid only a sum of Rs 41,200/ towards hire money as against the sum ofrs 1,43,100/- payable towards hire money, Rs 4,000/- towards compensation charges as per the agreement, incidental expenses and other expenses making a total of Rs 1,28,198/ -. ( 3 ) THE petitioner company vide notice" dated 29. 7. 88, issued to the respondents terminated the hire of the said vehicle and called upon the respondents to pay the total outstanding amount including interest on overdue instalments incidental expenses calculated upto 7. 7. 88 and to return the said vehicle to the petitioner. It is alleged that in terms ofthe said Hire Purchase Agreement, the respondents are jointly and severelly bound to pay a sum of Rs 1,28,198/- calculated upto 7. 7. 88 and to return the said vehicle to the petitioner. It is alleged that in terms ofthe said Hire Purchase Agreement, the respondents are jointly and severelly bound to pay a sum of Rs 1,28,198/- calculated upto 7. 8. 88 and overdue interest and incidental charges to the petitioner. It is next alleged that the Hire Purchase Agreement contained an arbitration clause to the effect that all disputes, differences and/or claims arising out ofthe said Hire Purchase Agreement are liable to be referred to the named arbitrator. ( 4 ) THE respondents were duly served through publication but as they failed to appear, they were proceeded ex-parte in the present proceedings vide order dated 4. 8. 93. ( 5 ) THE petitioner, in support of its case has adduced the evidence by way of affidavits and has filed the affidavits of Sh. A. K. Ahluwalia, the General Attorney ofthe petitioner company and that of Sh. D. Kumar, Accountant ofthe petitioner company. Sh. A K. Ahluwalia in his affidavit has stated on oath that he is the General Attorney ofthe petitioner company and as. such familiar with the facts of the case. He has proved the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 8. 4. 86 executed between the parties. The said agreement proved by this witness contains an arbitration clause (clause VI) which provides that all disputes, differences and/or claims arising out ofthe Hire Purchase Agreement inclusive of non- payment of hire amount or other dues payable by the hirer/hirers and the guarantor/guarantors to the owners shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions ofthe Indian Arbitration Act 1940 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. Vikramjit Sen, Advocate, Delhi. Sh. D. Kumar, the Accountant ofthe petitioner company in his affidavit has stated on oath that Hire Purchase Agreement (exhibit Public Witness-2/1) was executed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in his presence and that said Sh. D. Kumar signed the said agreement as a witness. He has also stated that since the hirer was in default in paying the instalments and other dues under the said agreement and in breach thereof a notice (exhibit Public Witness-2/2) dated 29. 7. 88 was issued by registered post to the respondent No. 1 and a copy ofthe said notice was sent to respondent No. 2 the guarantor. He has also stated that since the hirer was in default in paying the instalments and other dues under the said agreement and in breach thereof a notice (exhibit Public Witness-2/2) dated 29. 7. 88 was issued by registered post to the respondent No. 1 and a copy ofthe said notice was sent to respondent No. 2 the guarantor. He also proved the accounts (exhibit Public Witness-2/3) maintained in the office ofthe petitioner in respect of respondent No. 1. ( 6 ) FROM the ex-parte evidence, adduced by the petitioner, by way of affidavits of Sh. A. K. Aggarwal. the General Attorney ofthe petitioner and Sh. D. Kumar, the Accountant ofthe petitioner, which has gone on record unrebutted and unchallenged which 1 see no reason to disbelieve, the case of the petitioner is proved. I, consequently, direct that the arbitration agreement be filed in the Court and refer the disputes mentioned in the petition to the named arbitrator, namely, Sh. Vikramjit Sen, Advocate, Delhi for decision. The order is ex-parte.