Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a revision filed under Section 115 of CPC by the non-applicants against an order, dated 9-7-2001, passed by learned Xlth Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 59-A of 2000. By impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the application made by the respondent under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 (since repealed ). So the short question that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether learned Trial Judge was justified on his part in allowing the application made by the respondent under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 ? Facts necessary for the disposal of the revision need to be taken note of to appreciate the issue involved and urged. ( 2. ) AS observed supra, the petitioners are non-applicants whereas the respondent is the applicant in the Trial Court. ( 3. ) PETITIONER is a widow of one late Sudhir Bhargava whereas petitioner No. 2 is her minor son (now major ). Late Sudhir Bhargava owned agricultural land bearing khasra No. 748/1, measuring about 0. 321 hectare situated in Village Rau in Tehsil Mhow, District Indore. On his untimely death, at a very young age, the land in question devolved upon petitioners as his only surviving legal representative and this is how the petitioners became owner of the suit land. ( 4. ) IT is the case of petitioners that respondent happened to the tax consultant of petitioners family since during the life time of her late husband and was looking after their tax matters. He had obtained from the petitioner No. 1 certain blank signed stamp papers for being used in cases, if necessary. It is complained that respondent taking undue use and advantage of death of petitioners husband, prepared one so-called agreement said to be signed by petitioner No. 1, on 4-4-1981. It is further complained that on the strength of this so-called agreement, the respondent on 28-4-1987 filed an application purporting it to be under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act out of which this revision arises. In the application, it was averred that in terms of agreement, the petitioners had agreed to sell the land in question to the respondent and has also received Rs. 21,000/- by way of full sale consideration from the respondent. In the application, it was averred that in terms of agreement, the petitioners had agreed to sell the land in question to the respondent and has also received Rs. 21,000/- by way of full sale consideration from the respondent. It was further averred that respondent has also received possession of the suit land and hence, nothing is required to be done in the matter. It was then averred that the agreement provides for settlement of dispute by means of arbitration who is named one - Mr. B. R. Potdar. It was alleged that since the petitioners have refused to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement in favour of respondent and hence, the respondent has applied to the Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for making a reference to a named Arbitrator - Mr. Potdar so that he may embark upon the dispute raised by the respondent in relation to execution of sale deed. It is essentially on these facts, the respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and prayed for making a reference to named Arbitrator for resolving the dispute which according to respondent had arisen between the parties to an agreement. ( 5. ) THE petitioner opposed the application by filing reply on facts as also on law. According to them and as stated supra, the so-called agreement is no agreement in the eye of law, that it was never signed by the petitioner in favour of respondent much less with an intention to sell the land in question, that the so-called dispute is neither arbitrable, nor capable of being referred to Arbitration Tribunal, that petitioners never agreed to sell the land in question to any person much less to respondent that petitioners continue to remain in occupation and possession of the land as owners, that respondent had manufactured the agreement by taking advantage of the blank signed papers lying with him without the knowledge of the petitioners, that application made under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is barred by limitation as also not maintainable, being based on forged agreement as also based on the so-called dispute which is not referable to Arbitrator in domestic forum. ( 6. ) THE learned Trial Judge by impugned order allowed the application and has referred the case to named Arbitrator for adjudication. ( 6. ) THE learned Trial Judge by impugned order allowed the application and has referred the case to named Arbitrator for adjudication. As stated supra, it is against this order, the non- applicants have come up in revision. ( 7. ) HEARD Ku. V. Kasrekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri P. M. Bapna, learned Counsel for respondent. ( 8. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am inclined to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. As a consequence, the application made by the respondent under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act stands dismissed. ( 9. ) IN my opinion, the application itself was misconceived. Firstly, the dispute in relation to enforcement of specific performance of contract can not be referred to arbitration but it has to be made subject-matter of civil suit. Secondly, perusal of alleged agreement clearly indicated that it was not in fact in the form of an agreement but one sided affair. Thirdly, an alleged agreement of 1981 was being sought to be enforced after 7 years and that too not in the form of civil suit but in the matter of arbitration proceedings was not permissible, fourthly an inquiry into its alleged execution by the petitioner namely -whether it was at all executed ? and if so, whether it was in the nature of her free Will ? and whether she was ever intended to sell the land ought to have been made by the Trial Court before relying upon the agreement ? fifthly, recitals of the agreement itself doubted its genuineness and created a doubt in the mind of Court as to whether it was in fact an agreement entered into for sale of immovable property by the petitioners in favour of respondent ? ( 10. ) IN my considered opinion, the aforementioned infirmities appearing on the face of the alleged agreement and the same not having been taken note of while allowing the application made under Section 20 ibid renders the impugned order bad in law. It is totally unsustainable and hence, deserves to be quashed. ( 11. ) REVISION, thus, succeed and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the application made by the respondent under Section 20 of the Act, stands dismissed. No costs.