Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator by filing the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of the dispute arisen between the parties in pursuance of an agreement dated 10.1.2006. Vide the aforesaid agreement, the respondent was granted contract to carry out certain work on behalf of the petitioner. The Clause 18 of the Agreement is the Arbitration clause, which reads as under :- "18. It is agreed upon that in case of any dispute the matter will be referred to the Superintendent Engineer, PWD, B&R Circle. Karnal, whose decision will be final and binding on both the part." 2. The dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner served a notice Annexure P-10 on 1.7.2008, seeking concurrence of the respondent for appointment of the named Arbitrator to take up the adjudication process. But since the consent was not given by the respondent, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the dispute has arisen between the parties but in stead of named Arbitrator, an independent Arbitrator be appointed. To such a course, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. 4. In view of the agreement between the parties, Mr. N.K. Jain, H.No. 879, Sector-12, Panchkula, is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator shall be free to fix his fee in consultation with the parties. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on 14.9.2009.