PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) VIDE IA No. 3589/89 objections have been filed to the award dated 6/2/1986 published by Ishrat AM Ansari (Advocate ). On 2/11/1989, following issues were framed: (1) Whether the award given by respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in IA No. 3589/89 of respondent no. 1? (2) Relief. ( 2 ) PARTIES were directed to file affidavit by way of evidence. Needful has been done. ( 3 ) WHY evidence was required? Respondent No. 1, who has suffered an ex parte award has questioned the very existence of the agreement containing the arbitration clause whereunder the claimant made a unilateral reference and appointed ishrat Ali Ansari (Advocate) as an Arbitrator. I may note that the agreement in question dated 17/2/1984 relied upon by the respondent names Ishrat ali Ansari as an Arbitrator. ( 4 ) BEFORE I deal with the issue, whether there exists an agreement between the parties containing an arbitration clause, I may note that the award is an ex parte award and allows the claim of the respondent in the sum of Rs. 6,89,298. 00. ( 5 ) AWARD shows that work of raising an unauthorised construction at Sainik farms was assigned by the objector to the contractor (petitioner) and the municipal authorities intervened. Various claims were raised by the contractor which included Rs. 80,000. 00 on account of damage caused by MCD, Rs. 30,000. 00 towards machinery and shuttering equipment stated to be misappropriated by the objector and Rs. 80,000. 00 towards cost of material. Rs. 10,000. 00 was claimed towards mental harassment and the remaining amount was for the work done. ( 6 ) LEARNED Arbitrator held first hearing on 7/1/1986 and issued notice to the objector to appear before him on 14/1/1986. None appeared for the objector on 14/1/1986. Fresh notice was directed to be issued requiring presence of the objector on 30/1/1986. On said date noting that A/d card evidencing receipt of notice had come back with signatures of the objector and none appeared, learned Arbitrator proceeded ex parte against the objector. ( 7 ) RECORD shows that the objector received the registered notice sent by the arbitrator on 17/1/1986. The said A/d card is at Page No. 28 of the record of arbitrator. ( 7 ) RECORD shows that the objector received the registered notice sent by the arbitrator on 17/1/1986. The said A/d card is at Page No. 28 of the record of arbitrator. ( 8 ) UNFORTUNATELY for the objector, his Counsel misguided him for the reason, when he received the notice from the Arbitrator rather than proceed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, objector filed a civil suit registered as Suit No. 49/86 before the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi in which the objector questioned the agreement relied upon by the contractor for enforcing claim before an Arbitrator. Said suit was ultimately dismissed as not maintainable by the learned Civil Judge. It was held that appropriate remedy for the objector was to file a petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. ( 9 ) I deal with the first issue, whether there exists an agreement containing arbitration clause between the parties. ( 10 ) AFFIDAVIT filed by the contractor by way of evidence asserts that on 17. 2. 1984 agreement containing an arbitration clause was entered into. One dharampal has also filed an affidavit in support of the stand taken by the contractor to the effect that he was a witness to the agreement and that he along with one Laxmi chand were present when agreement was entered into and that they had signed as an attesting witness. Laxmi Chand had also filed an affidavit to this effect. ( 11 ) IN his affidavit, the objector has denied any agreement but states that a rate list was supplied on 17. 2. 1984 and this rate list contained the terms as per which payment had to be made. It was signed by both parties. ( 12 ) CONTRACTOR has admitted the said rate list but has stated that apart from the rate list, a separate agreement was executed. ( 13 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the contractor has not filed the original agreement but photocopy thereof exists at Page 22 in the record of arbitration. ( 14 ) I have perused the agreement. It refers to a rate list supplied by the contractor and agreed to by the objector. The agreement states that the said rate list be read as part of the agreement. ( 14 ) I have perused the agreement. It refers to a rate list supplied by the contractor and agreed to by the objector. The agreement states that the said rate list be read as part of the agreement. ( 15 ) FROM a photocopy of the agreement and the rate list, it is apparent to the naked eye that the typewriter used for typing the contents of agreement is different than the typewriter used for typing the rate list. ( 16 ) BOTH the documents bear even date. In his affidavit, the contractor states that the rate list and the agreement formed a composite settlement. In para 4 of his affidavit he has deposed as under:"4. That the deponent and said Shri Subimal Roy Choudhry settled rates and charges, etc. of said proposed construction on the said property of shri Subimal Roy Choudhry bearing No. 273, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, new Delhi. Consequently rates charges terms and conditions were formed settled in the form of an agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2/- and a separate list on the letter head of deponent's construction company on 17/2/1984. " ( 17 ) THE aforesaid i. e. different typewriter used casts a serious doubt on the authenticity of the agreement dated 17/2/1984. ( 18 ) UNFORTUNATELY, original agreement has not been filed and I am unable to compare the signatures of the owner on the agreement with his admitted signatures. ( 19 ) I rest my finding on the difference in the typewriter used for transcribing the contents of agreement and the rate list and the fact that the contractor claims that they were executed together. One would presume that they were prepared together. ( 20 ) I accordingly hold that the agreement dated 17/2/1984 has not been established by the contractor as having been executed by the objector. ( 21 ) THE objector never participated before the Arbitrator and, therefore, question of any acquiescence does not arise. ( 22 ) I accordingly dispose IA No. 3589/89 by declaring that since there was no agreement between the parties containing an arbitration clause, award published by Mr. Ishrat Ali Ansari, Advocate on 6/2/1986 is null and void. No costs. Ordered accordingly.