JUDGMENT ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) - This revision is directed against the order dated 19-6-1997 passed by learned District Judge, Jammu in File No. 31 Arb. Act. By means of impugned order, application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator has been allowed and as consequence of it Garrison Engineer, Jammu was appointed as such. 2. Facts, which are not in dispute in this case are that contract was entered into between the parties for MD accommodation for staff of K.V. No. 4 at Memoon Complex. Since disputes arose between the parties, therefore, on 13-9-1996, respondent herein called upon petitioner No. 2 to appoint an Arbitrator. This request was accompanied by the claims with the approximate amount for determination. Though the respondent concurred for the appointment of an Arbitrator, but none was appointed. 3. In the aforesaid background, on 4-2-1997 after waiting for sometime, petitioner filed application in question wherein impugned order has been passed. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners forcefully urged that Arbitrator had been appointed by his client on 17th April, 1997, as such, the learned trial Court had fallen into error by revoking his authority and appointing Garrison Engineer, Jammu as Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in terms of the arbitration Clause 70 of IAFW-2249. According to him, once it came to the notice of the District Judge that the Arbitrator has been appointed, Court had to jurisdiction to revoke the authority of such an Arbitrator. 5. With a view to properly appreciate this submission, what needs to be kept in view is that the respondents are expected to act in a reasonable, just and fair manner. They cannot be permitted to sit to tight over the matter and act leisurely. As already observed on 13-9-1996, prayer was made, however, till about eight months, they were not concerned except for concurring. 6. Once the execution of the agreement was admitted between the parties, petitioners claim that they are not liable to pay anything, whereas respondent was claiming substantial amount from them, should have been enough to compel the petitioners to come out of hypernation and to immediately appoint the Arbitrator. Nothing that sort has been done. Mr. Gupta placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court M/s. Harbans Singh Tuli & Sons Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1124 = 1992(2) Arb. LR 93). Nothing that sort has been done. Mr. Gupta placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court M/s. Harbans Singh Tuli & Sons Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1124 = 1992(2) Arb. LR 93). When a reference is made to this Judgment, it is distinguishable on facts. When a reference is made to para 2 of this Judgment, it indicates that the parties had joined issue and following issues were framed therein : (i) Whether there are sufficient grounds for the appointment of an Arbitrator for referring the matter in dispute ? (ii) Whether the petition is within time ? (iii) Whether the present petition is not maintainable ? (iv) Whether this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit ? (v) Relief. Admittedly, the controversy involved in the present case was not the subject-matter under consideration before the Supreme Court. That being so, this decision does not advance the case of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. In this behalf, it may be appropriate to observe that once the petitioners had been called upon to appoint an Arbitrator and they failed to do the needful within the reasonable time, they forfeited their such right and in such a situation, Court is competent to appoint an Arbitrator. See Nandyal Co-op. Spinning Mills Ltd. v. K. V. Mohan Rao ((1993) 2 SCC 654 = 1993(1) Arb. LR 469 (SC)), State of Rajasthan and others v. M/s. G. S. Atwal & Co. (AIR 1996 Rajasthan 170 = 1996(2) Arb. LR 36), Executive Engineer, Prachi Division, Bhubaneswar v. Sangaram Chhapolia and another (AIR 1980 Orissa 51), G. Ramachandra Reddy & Co. v. Chief Engineer, Madras Zone, Military Engineering Service (AIR 1994 SC 2381 = 1994(2) Arb. LR 61 (SC)), Union of India and others v. Srinivas Forest Co-operative Store Converri Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Vikarabad (AIR 2000 A.P. 325 = 2000(2) Arb. LR 39) and Union of India and others v. D. Khosla and others (C.I.M.A. No. 157/96 (Reported in 2000(3) Arb. LR 412)). 7. No other point is urged. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed on 13-10-1997 shall stand vacated forthwith. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately, who will thereafter proceed in accordance with law.