Judgment Gyan Sudha Misra, J.-This application has been filed under Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the impartiality of the Arbitrator who had been appointed for adjudication of the dispute after the parties gave their consent for his appointment. 2. In course of the proceeding conducted by the sole Arbitrator, the applicant gathered an impression that the Arbitrator is not functioning in an upright and impartial manner and was giving hints to the witnesses, which could favour the case of the respondent builders and associates. It is for this reason that it thought proper to file this application for replacing the present Arbitrator by someone else and certain grounds also have been incorporated in the application justifying the change. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the application and also submitted that an Arbitrator who had been appointed with consent of both the parties, should not be replaced on flimsy and unsustainable grounds at the drop of a hat merely on apprehension of one of the parties that the Arbitrator is not functioning in an impartial manner. 4. It is no doubt true that Section 12 of the Act of 1996 envisages a provision to change the Arbitrator and grounds of challenge have been incorporated therein. But, in spite of this provision, it has to be noted that the Arbitrator can be changed only if the party at least prima facie comes up with something extremely obnoxious against the functioning of the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator cannot be allowed to be changed merely on apprehension and suspicion of one of the parties that the Arbitrator is being partial to one of the parties. 5. After some arguments, however, Counsel for the applicant has clearly stated that instead of pressing for replacement of the Arbitrator, the applicant may be allowed to challenge the proceeding on any ground available to it before the present Arbitrator himself under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1990 as per the procedure laid down therein. 6. There is no reason for this Court to come in the way of the applicant in so far as this request is concerned as this would be clearly in consonance with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1996. 6. There is no reason for this Court to come in the way of the applicant in so far as this request is concerned as this would be clearly in consonance with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1996. The application, therefore, stands disposed of with liberty to the applicant to approach the Arbitrator in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1996 for any reason which may be available to the applicant and it deems fit and proper to press the same. 7. The application, in view of this liberty be treated as disposed of . 8. It hardly needs to be emphasised that any observation made hereinabove even remotely, will not be allowed to prejudice the case of either of the parties in any manner.