Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 2. As per report of the Registry, case is complete as regards service. However, nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Court is left with no option but to proceed with the matter. 3. An application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by the applicant-petitioner. This application was treated as suit. It was averred that the Car bearing registration No. PUJ-2486 belonging to M/s Ashoka Industries Tanda Road was insured in the year 1974. In the year 1975, the Car met with the accident. In terms of Clause 7 of the Insurance Policy, the claimant asked for the repairs of the Car. This request was declined by the Company. 4. The suit was contested by the insurance company on merit as well. It was stated that surveyor has already assessed the damaged to the Car to the extent of Rs. 570/- only. The petitioner has refused to receive the said amount and the petition was not maintainable. 5. Learned trial court, vide its judgment dated 23rd July, 1980 answered the issues against the petitioner and held that the application was not maintainable under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. An appeal against this judgment was preferred by the present petitioner, which was also dismissed by the learned first appellate Court vide its judgment dated 17th December, 1981. The learned first appellate court held as under:- "....I have however failed to agree to the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no evidence on the file to show as to on which date the car in question was involved in the accident. Moreover, the actual difference which has arisen between the parties has not been specified in the petition Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. According to the provision of Clause 7 of the Insurance Policy all differences arising out of its terms and conditions are referable to the decision of an arbitration to be appointed in writing by the parties. Moreover, the actual difference which has arisen between the parties has not been specified in the petition Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. According to the provision of Clause 7 of the Insurance Policy all differences arising out of its terms and conditions are referable to the decision of an arbitration to be appointed in writing by the parties. The appellant has not mentioned the loss incurred by him as a result of the car having met with an accident in the petition Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and nor he has hinted about this amount when he appeared before the learned trial court as a witness on the contrary. It is the respondent who gave the figure which was assessed by their technical surveyor. In view of all these circumstances the petitioner has badly failed to make out any point of difference between the parties having arisen out of the terms and conditions of the insurance. Policy and thus the application moved by the petitioner Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable in the present form. I, therefore, concur with the findings of the learned trial court on issue No. 2." The above findings recorded by the learned first appellate authority are in consonance with the settled principle of law. 6. To invoke the provisions of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, it was essential for the petitioner to make definite pleadings and show to the court that dispute existed which itself was not specifically covered under the clause of the insurance policy. The matter, which was specifically dealt with and provided under the policy can hardly be said to be arbitral dispute under Section 20 of the said Act. 7. As already noticed, despite service nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Keeping in view of the above circumstances. I find no merit in this revision petition dismissed.