Honble Kothari, J.–This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.11.1992 by the District Judge, Bikaner against M/s. Shiv Construction Company vs. State of Rajasthan (civil misc. case No. 10/89), rejecting the suit of the applicant on the ground that clause 23 of the Contract in question cannot be construed to be arbitration clauses and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to raise arbitration dispute with respect to the said contract before the Arbitrator. (2). Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. Ms. Rekha Borana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that clause 23 of the contract reproduced in the memo of appeal which is extracted below:- ``Clause 23.- Except where otherwise specified in the contract the decision of the Chief Engineer of the Government of Rajasthan for the time being shall be final, conclusive, and binding on all parties the contract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instruction herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship, or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of, or relating to, the contract designs, drawings, specifications, estimate, instructions, order or these conditions, or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to progress of the work, or after the completion or abandonment thereof or the contract by the contractor shall be final, conclusive and binding on the contractor. (3). Is very widely worded and, therefore it is certainly a clause which can be construed to be an arbitration clause in the contract and the learned trial Court could not have rejected the suit of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the following judgments in support of her submissions. 1. Smt. Rukamanibai Gupta vs. The Collector, Jabalpur & Ors. ( AIR 1981 Sc 479 ) 2. Mallikarjun vs. Gulbarga University (2003 (3) ALR 579) (4). Clause 15 with which the Honble Supreme Court was concerned in the case of Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs. The Collector, Jabalpur & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 479 (supra) is also reproduced herewith for comparison. ``15. ( AIR 1981 Sc 479 ) 2. Mallikarjun vs. Gulbarga University (2003 (3) ALR 579) (4). Clause 15 with which the Honble Supreme Court was concerned in the case of Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs. The Collector, Jabalpur & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 479 (supra) is also reproduced herewith for comparison. ``15. Whenever any doubt, difference or dispute shall hereafter arise touching the construction of these presents or anything herein contained or any matter or things connected with the said lands or the working or non-working thereof or the amount or payment of any rent or royalty reserved or made payable hereunder the matter in difference shall be decided by the lessor whose decision shall be final. (5). Clause 30 of the agreement with which the Honble Supreme Court was concerned in the case of Mallikarjun vs. Gulbarga University reported in 2003(3) Arb. LR 579(SC) (supra) is also reproduced for comparison. ``30. The decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Gulbarga Circle for the time being shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the contract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or material used on the work, or as to any other question, claim, right, matter, or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of, or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or those conditions, or otherwise concerning the works or the execution, or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work, or after the completion or abandonment thereof in case of dispute arising between the contractor and Gulbarga University. (6). A bare perusal of these two clauses would reveal that almost in identical circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court held that these clauses amounted to arbitration clauses and, therefore, the matter was required to be referred for arbitration. (7). Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Tiwari could not really controvert this position of law. (8). A bare reading of Clause 23 with which, I am concerned ex- facie shows that the decision of the Chief Engineer on any issue relating to specification, designs, drawings and instructions, ``or as to any other question, claim, right, matter, or things whatsoever in any way arising out of, or relating to the contract.. or otherwise... shall be final. (8). A bare reading of Clause 23 with which, I am concerned ex- facie shows that the decision of the Chief Engineer on any issue relating to specification, designs, drawings and instructions, ``or as to any other question, claim, right, matter, or things whatsoever in any way arising out of, or relating to the contract.. or otherwise... shall be final. Thus, in fact, the said clause can certainly be said to be an arbitration clause in the contract. Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that an arbitration clause existed in the contract in question and therefore, the trial Court has erred in holding otherwise. (9). Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.11.1992 is set aside and the arbitrator, the Chief Engineer of the department designated in clause 23 shall enter upon the arbitration and shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. (10). With these observations, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.