Judgment J. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the Union of india, Ministry of Defence against the order of the District judge dated 23. 2. 1999 whereby the application filed by the repondent under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator had been allowed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved against such appointment of Arbitrator. An agreement was entered into between the parties for the contract in question and under Clause 7 of such agreement, the dispute between the parties was referable to the arbitration. The case of the respondent is that despite the work having been done within time, the payment was made in time. lt was also disputed that the respondent had not done correct measurement. Demand was issued to the appellant with request to appoint the Arbitrator. The Union of india had not appointed any Arbitrator and a dispute arose for the payment of Rs. 66,41,500/ -. Notice was issued on 31. 7. 1997, but no action was taken, therefore, application was moved to appoint an independent Arbitrator. ( 3 ) PER contra, the appellant had stated that full and final payment had been made on 11. 6. 1994 which was received without any objection. It was stated as per the condition no. 63 of the agreement after the receipt of the full and final settlement, no right was left with the parties to raise any dispute and as such no arbitrator could have been appointed. It was also averred that the demand was given on 13. 9. 1994 and as such the application was beyond limitation. As per the appellant the final bill was made on 28. 10 1993 and payment was made on 11 6. 1994 and as such receipt of any dispute after the period of three years was beyond limitation. ( 4 ) PER contra the case of the respondent was that after the dispute had arisen, a notice was given on 13 9 1994 to the appellant for appointment of Arbitrator which was replied to on 30 12 1994. The application was filed on 19. 12 1997 and as such the court had held that the application was within limitation. The application was filed on 19. 12 1997 and as such the court had held that the application was within limitation. In view of the Arbitration Clause7 (b) in the agreement, the court had observed that there is a provision of appointment of Arbitrator and, therefore, the court had ultimately appointed pyare Mohan as Arbitrator. ( 5 ) OBJECTION has been taken by the respondent that appointment of the Arbitrator cannot be challenged in the revision petition and reliance is placed on the judgement reported in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Glrdhari Lal, wherein it was held that the district Judge and other Judicial Officers are designated under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration act, 1996 are persons designata and, therefore they do not come within the definition of the Court subordinate in the High Court and, therefore, their orders are not revisable under section 115, C PC by the High Court, wherein it was held that the revision petition is not maintainable but the Honble Judge had treated that revision petition to be writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India ( 6 ) IN the case of M/s P. K. Ramaiah and company v. Chairman and Managing Director, Nationalthermal Power Corpn. 2, wherein it was held that on the voluntary and unconditional written acceptance or payment in full and final settlement of the contract, subsequent claim for further amounts in respect of the same work was not arbitrable dispute. ( 7 ) IN the case of Nimet Resources Inc. and anr. v. Essar Steels Ltd. 3, where there has been some transaction, but the correspondence, documents or exchange between the parties were not clear as to the existence or non-existence of an arbitration agreement, it was held that the appropriate course would be for the Arbitrator to decide the question under section 16. ( 8 ) IN the case of Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. v. Mehul Construction Co. ( 8 ) IN the case of Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. v. Mehul Construction Co. , the order passed under Section 11 (6) by the Chief justice of High Court or his nominee, held is an administrative order, its purpose being the speedy disposal of commercial disputes, it was held that an order refusing to appoint an Arbitrator after going into and deciding contentious issues would be an act of non-performance of duty and so the authority which made the order could be" directed by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty and could be challenged in the writ petition. ( 9 ) IN the similar circumstances and similar point involved in the case of damodar Valley Corporation v. K. K. Kar, it was observed as under:"in the circumstances, as we have held that where in a contract there is an arbitration clause, notwithstanding the plea that there was a full and final settlement between the parties, that dispute can be referred to the arbitration, the Subordinate Judge is directed to dispose of the petition of the appellant according to law. " ( 10 ) SO far point of limitation is concerned the limitation starts after statutory period of notice expires. ( 11 ) IN view of the above-said authorities, it is a matter of evidence to be led by the parties whether fulkand final settlement had taken place or whether the application was beyond limitation. This very point can be raised by the appellant before the Arbitrator as well. ( 12 ) I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Court below and, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the revision petition, which is being treated as writ petition, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .