JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. This Civil Revision application is directed against order dated 24.7.1999, whereby application filed by petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, has been rejected. 2. A tender was floated by opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, on behalf of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Opposite party No. 4 for earth work in railway formation in embankment with mechanical compaction infilling/ cutting including blanketing, turfing and boulder pitching etc. and construction of retaining wall near Khanudih Railway station, for Madhuband washery siding. Petitioners offer was accepted therefore and on 24.4.1991 an agreement was executed. 3. Petitioner-Company was to commence work within fifteen days from the date of handing over the site and the work was to be completed within twelve months from the date of handing over the site. 4. Neither any site could be selected by he opposite parties nor handed over to the petitioner and so the work could not be started. However, the petitioner claimed that pursuant to the work order in question necessary arrangements were made so that as soon as site is handed over, the actual working may be started immediately in order to complete the same within twelve months from the date of commencement. For that purpose, the petitioner-company brought vehicles, staffs. technical persons collected machineries and invested a lot on over-head establishments. Petitioner-company approached opposite parties for site several times. In this manner, when finally no site was made available and the work could not be started, petitioner suffered huge loss and damages for idle labour, machineries and also over-head establishment. 5. Petitioner-company submitted its claim by letter dated 26.5.1993, which was rejected by opposite party No. 3 on 28.10.1993. Thereafter the petitioner approached for referring the dispute and claim raised by it for. Arbitration in terms of clause 63 of the General condition of Contract and standard specifications and requested General Manage, opposite party No. 3 to send list of more than three officers, one of whom to be nominated by petitioner. In this regard a notice dated 15.7.1995 (Annexure 3) was also sent. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (Annexure 6) in the Court of First Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 1996. In this regard a notice dated 15.7.1995 (Annexure 3) was also sent. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (Annexure 6) in the Court of First Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 1996. A show cause was filed therein on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3. 7. However, by impugned order dated 24.7.1999 the Subordinate Judge dismissed the Miscellaneous Case holding that there was no arbitrable dispute between the parties according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and as such there was no merit in the petition filed under Section 8 of the Act. 8. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present Revision application against the said order. Opposite party No. 1 has filed a detailed counter affidavit and in paragraph 20 (m) thereof admitted that a letter dated 1.7.1996 was sent to the petitioner giving panel of names of five Arbitrators in terms of clause 63 of General Condition of Contract and Standard Specifications. 9. In such circumstances. I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Court concerned to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that I have not applied my mind to the merits of the petitioners case for appointment of Arbitrator. 10. In the result, this Revision application is allowed, but without costs. Let the lower Court records be sent down forthwith". 11. Civil Revision allowed.