JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Has the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karnal, erred in accepting the application of the first respondent under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while passing the order dated 4th March, 2002 ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in these two petitions. . Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the State of Haryana, contends that an agreement had been executed by the respondent with the petitioner (State of Haryana). A copy of this agreement has been produced as Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. This agreement provided for arbitration in case of a dispute. Under Clause 25(3)(a) the dispute has to be referred to a Tribunal consisting of "3 Arbitrators one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Contractor. The third Arbitrator shall be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the parties and shall act as presiding Arbitrator". On this basis, the counsel submits that the order passed by the Court cannot be sustained. 3. We have perused this agreement. In clause 25(3)(f) it has been specifically provided that when the value of the contract is Rs. 50 millions and below, the disputes or differences arising shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator should be appointed by agreement between the parties, failing such agreement, by the appointing authority, namely by the Indian Council of Arbitrator President of the Institution of Engineers......." 4. A perusal of the order passed by the Court shows that it has directed that "the dispute between the parties shall be settled by the Sole Arbitrator to be nominated by the Indian Council of Arbitration at New Delhi...". It is not disputed that the value of the contract is well below Rs. 50 millions. The order passed by the Court is in strict conformity with the terms of the agreement. No provision of any law is shown to have been violated. Thus, no ground for interference with the order passed by the Courts is made out. 5. In view of the above, the question as posed above is answered against the petitioner in both the cases. 6. No other point has been raised. 7. Sh. Jaswant Singh states that Civil Writ Petition Nos. 824 of 2002 and 494 of 2002 involving a similar issue are pending before this Court for 26th July, 2002. 8. 5. In view of the above, the question as posed above is answered against the petitioner in both the cases. 6. No other point has been raised. 7. Sh. Jaswant Singh states that Civil Writ Petition Nos. 824 of 2002 and 494 of 2002 involving a similar issue are pending before this Court for 26th July, 2002. 8. Let a copy of the order passed in this case be placed on the record of the aforesaid writ petitions. Petition dismissed.