JUDGMENT 1. - Service is complete. Reply has also already been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent states that an arbitration clause 23 exist in agreement entered between the parties that any dispute arising out of contract between the applicant and respondent shall be settled by the arbitrator. The dispute had arisen between the parties in respect of said agreement and still exist. It falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. The parties have failed to appoint an arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement hence, this application has been moved under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondents were called upon to appoint the arbitrator in terms of Clause 23. Until expiry of period of notice, respondents have failed to respond to the said notice. Hence, the application under Section 11 was made. 3. A plea is taken by the respondent while contesting the application that an injunction suit having been filed by the petitioner and the same having been dismissed, this application is not maintainable. 4. Be that as it may in the facts and circumstances, the dispute exists between the respondent and applicant which is required to be referred to the arbitrator under the agreement, hence parties have failed to appoint the arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause, therefore, the arbitrator is required to be appointed in terms of Section 11 of the Act. 5. Consequently, the application is allowed Mr. A.C. Mehta, a retired Chief Engineer of Irrigation Department R/o 333-A Saraswati Nagar, Basni who was appointed as arbitrator earlier in the dispute between the same parties is appointed as sole arbitrator in this case also all the objections can be raised before the arbitrator. The question of effect of the judgment of the Civil Court on the dispute may also be raised before the arbitrator. The cost of arbitration and fee of arbitrator shall be as determined by him. 6. The application is accordingly disposed of.Application allowed. *******