( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 5-1-1999 passed in O. P. No. 259 of 1994 by the learned i Additional Senior Civil Judge, visaksapatnam. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in the revision petition are the respondents and the first respondent in the revision is the petitioner in the O. P. and the 2nd respondent is one Sri Indraji, a retired District Judge who was appointed as sole arbitrator to settle the disputes between the parties. ( 3 ) THE first respondent herein filed o. P. No. 259 of 1994 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, visakhapatnam under Sections 8 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called "the Act" to supply the vacancy in the office of the Arbitrator by appointing a fit and proper person as Sole Arbitrator to settle the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents relating to the supplemental work of desalting and dewatering under the main work of excavation of Yeluru Left main Canal from K. m. 69. 00 to Km. 70. 705 under Agreement No. 5/86-87 dt. 16-1-1987. ( 4 ) THE Court below had marked exs. A-1 to A-14 and also Exs. B-1 to B-14 on consent of the parties and after elaborate discussion had allowed the petition appointing Sri Indraji, a Retired District judge as Sole Arbitrator. The amount involved in the O. P. is more than rs. 8,00,000/ -. ( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the merits and demerits of the matter, the learned government Pleader for Arbitration had raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the very O. P. itself on the ground that when the amount exceeds rs. 50,000/-, the first respondent ought to have invoked the jurisdiction of a competent civil Court and the first respondent is not entitled to maintain the o. P. under the provisions of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel had placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of A. P. v. Obulu Reddy and State of A. P. v. Obulu reddy. There is no controversy as far as this position is concerned. In support of his contention, the learned counsel had placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of A. P. v. Obulu Reddy and State of A. P. v. Obulu reddy. There is no controversy as far as this position is concerned. However, Sri Srinadh, reddy, representing Sri C. V. Nagarjuna reddy, the learned Counsel for the first respondent had requested for converting the O. P. into a regularly instituted suit by permitting the party to comply with all the formalities including the payment of Court fees payable. In the ordinary course and in equity, it may be a just and proper order. The learned Counsel for the first respondent had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Andhra pradesh v. M. Shanker Reddy and also the unreported decision in CRP Nos. 761 and 1584 of 1995 dated 25-8-1999. However, the learned Government Pleader for arbitration had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in p. A. Ahmmed Ibrahim v. food Corporation of india and strongly relied upon the ratio laid down in paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment. The learned Government Pleader had stressed on the aspect that any application filed under the provisions of a different statute cannot be treated as a suit or a plaint unless otherwise provided in the said Act. The learned Government Pleader for arbitration had also contended that in view of the binding decision of the Apex court, the other decisions of this Court may not be of much consequence and hence it is impermissible in law to permit the first respondent to convert the O. P. into a regularly instituted suit. ( 6 ) I have no other option except to accept this contention of the learned Government pleader for Arbitration. But, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances that the first respondent has been prosecuting the litigation under bona fide impression that the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 are applicable and in the fond hope that he will be able to get cheaper and quicker remedy in this regard, it is just and proper to give him an opportunity to institute the suit basing on the same cause of action by giving him the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, I hereby make it clear that in case the first respondent chooses to present a plaint in accordance with law along with an application under Section 14 of the limitation Act, 1963, the proper and competent Civil Court before which such plaint is presented along with the application specified supra, shall consider the same in accordance with law and give the suitable benefits available to him in law. ( 7 ) WITH the above directions, the Civil revision Petition is disposed of. But, in the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.