ORDER An Arbitrator nominated by this Court to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents, it appears has addressed a letter indicating his inability to continue to function as an Arbitrator and according to the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner Sri Vivek S. Reddy and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, dispute has not yet been resolved. 2. Justice B.S. Raikote, former Judge of this Court had been nominated as an Arbitrator to function for arbitrating the dispute between the parties in terms of the order dated 24-2-2005. The registry has put up the letter addressed by the learned Arbitrator for further orders. 3. I have already taken the view that there is no question of this Court passing repeated orders for nominating an Arbitrator in terms of the powers under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the order dated 28-2-2006 passed in R.P. No. 247 of 2005 (in C.M.P. No. 69 of 2004). The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “7. Insofar as the passing of orders on the letter is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel, this Court will have to appoint another person to act as umpire, as the person who had been appointed as umpire earlier has withdrawn his consent. 8. I am of the view that the Court having once passed an order in exercise of the power under Section 11(5) of the Act, cannot keep working on this power for appointment of yet another Arbitrator as and when situation develops. If for whatever reasons, the person who had been nominated as Arbitrator does not act in such a position, it is for the parties to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in a manner as provided for and not by seeking reopening of a concluded matter and such orders I am of the view, cannot be passed time and again, by passing orders in the very miscellaneous petition which has already been disposed of. It is open for the parties to have recourse to their remedies in the manner provided in law. 9. No occasion to pass any further orders. Review petition is rejected, reserving liberty to the parties to work out their rights and remedies in accordance with the provisions of the Act independently.” 4. It is open for the parties to have recourse to their remedies in the manner provided in law. 9. No occasion to pass any further orders. Review petition is rejected, reserving liberty to the parties to work out their rights and remedies in accordance with the provisions of the Act independently.” 4. When once the Arbitrator is nominated, so far as this Court is concerned, matter concludes. It is for the parties to work out further remedies with developments as and when take place. 5. No occasion for this Court to pass further orders or keeps passing orders. Registry to file the letter. 6. As the Arbitrator nominated/appointed by this Court is not functioning as such and as submitted by learned Counsels for parties, the dispute is still at large, parties are at liberty to have recourse to agree to have the matter resolved through an Arbitrator mutually agreed or can work out the statutory provisions yet again.