JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.9.1991 passed by the IVth A.D.J., Gwalior whereby the issue on the point of jurisdiction was decided in favour of the respondent that the Civil Court, Gwalior had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 23,055.70p with interest at the rate of 18% per annum at the price of uniforms and clothes supplied by the plaintiff. 3. There was a contract between the parties that the plaintiff-respondent would supply certain lab-coats of different descriptions to the defendants' employees who were large in number and the plaintiff claimed to have supplied as per the orders. The copies of orders placed are on record. The supply receipts are also placed on record. 4. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the defendants-appellants that in accordance with the agreement between the parties the matter had to be referred to the Arbitrator as there was an arbitration clause. This preliminary point was taken up by the trial Court. It was held by the trial Court that the matters for which there was an arbitration clause were different than the matters of dispute between the parties in this case. The trial Court accordingly held that the arbitration clause was not applicable to the facts of the case and the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants raised the same point that in view of the arbitration clause the matter be referred to the Arbitrator and the proceedings of the suit be stayed. 6. 5. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants raised the same point that in view of the arbitration clause the matter be referred to the Arbitrator and the proceedings of the suit be stayed. 6. A bare perusal of the arbitration clause, which was general for the contractors having contract with the defendants-appellants shows as under: "Except where otherwise provided for in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions, herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Executive Director." The matter of dispute between the parties was that when the orders were placed by the defendants and the plaintiff claims to have supplied the lab-coats, etc. for which some payment was made, part of the payment was withheld and only for its recovery the suit was filed. Further, in the purchase order itself, certain conditions are mentioned. Item 21 is in respect of jurisdiction which is in the following words: "21. Jurisdiction-- All questions, disputes or differences arising under, out of or in connection with contract shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the place from which the acceptance of the tender is issued, is situated." 7. The arbitration clause as referred above was for general tenders of works to be done in the factory in the present case for the purchase and sale of certain articles. Different conditions were put on the back of the purchase order and on the point of jurisdiction it is conferred to the local Court. Therefore, the general arbitration clause did not apply to the facts of the present case. The only dispute was for non-payment of certain amounts of some items supplied by the plaintiff. This was the dispute which is covered under clause 21 of the agreement. It has no relation to the general arbitration clause of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal. Therefore, the general arbitration clause did not apply to the facts of the present case. The only dispute was for non-payment of certain amounts of some items supplied by the plaintiff. This was the dispute which is covered under clause 21 of the agreement. It has no relation to the general arbitration clause of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal. In this view of the matter, the trial Court had rightly held that the civil Court at Gwalior had jurisdiction to try the suit which was very simple in nature for recovery of some amount for the supply of lab-coats. 8. A reference was also made to the case of I.T.C. Limited v. George Joseph Fernandes and another ( AIR 1989 SC 839 ). In that case, the Supreme Court had said that normally if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and any clause of the arbitration agreement is not illegal, the matter be referred to the Arbitrator and the proceedings of the suit have to be stayed. But the facts of the present case are different. There is no arbitration clause in the purchase order which is the only agreement between the parties. The general arbitration, clause of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal was in respect of the matters mentioned in the clause itself like designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, etc.. In the present case, the only dispute was in respect of non-payment of certain clothes already supplied. Therefore, the general arbitration clause could not apply to the facts of the case. The trial Court had rightly held that the civil Court, Gwalior had jurisdiction to try the suit. 9. There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed accordingly with costs. The record of the lower Court be sent back to the trial Court for proceeding with the trial of the suit according to law.