JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - This is an appeal u/s 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the Order Dated 21.2.1995 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in M.J.C. No. 33 of 1994 (arising out of T.S. No. 62 of 1991) setting aside the award dated 28.4.1991 filed u/s 14(2) of the Act & dismissing the suit. 2. The facts of the case as unfolded from the record are as follows: The present Appellants & Respondent No. 1 are the 3 sons of one late Baidyanath Pati of village Khanda Deula, P.S. Baisingha, district-Mayurbhanj. The family had possessed both movable & immovable properties. As there were some difficulties in joint possession of the properties, the Appellants referred the dispute to the Arbitrators in writing on 21.10.1990 & authorized them to partition their properties. After hearing the parties & on a thorough examination of the materials, the Arbitrators allotted three separate allotments to the three brothers by passing an award on 28.4.1991. The said award was registered on a stamp paper on 29.6.1991 & filed in the Court of the Learned Sub-Judge, Baripada (now Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada) u/s 14(2) of the Act which was registered as Title Suit No. 62 of 1991 Thereafter, the Court below issued notice which was received by Respondent No. 1 on 10.7.1991. On 4.9.1991, Respondent No. 1 filed his objection u/s 33 of the Act which was registered as M.J.C. No. 33 of 1994. The present Appellants filed their counter to the said objection in M.J.C No. 33 of 1994. The parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing the parties, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowed the M.J.C. on contest without cost on 21.2.1995 setting aside the award dated 28.4.1991 & dismissed the suit. 3. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Court below, the Appellants have filed this Misc. Appeal on the grounds that the objection filed by Respondent not before the Court below u/s 33 of the Act, having not been filed within thirty days from receipt of the notice was barred by limitation & the finding of the Court below that the self acquired properties were included, was grossly erroneous as the same was not an issue before the Arbitrators. Respondent No. 1, having acquired to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators & accepted the Arbitration Agreement, cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 33 of the Act. Therefore, the Order Dated 21.2-1995 passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside & the award dated 23.4.1991 passed by the Arbitrators shall be made a rule of the Court. 4. As the award passed by the Arbitrators is equitable, Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) liberally discussed the objections filed by Respondent No. 1 u/s 33 of the Act & after considering the materials available on record, he passed a reasoned order setting aside the award. Therefore, the Court below committed no illegality or irregularity & hence the impugned orders need not be interfered with. 5. On perusal of the record, it is found that the parties referred their dispute to the Arbitrators for partition of the properties. After three sittings, i.e., on 21.10.1990, 22.10.1990 & 28.4.1991, the Arbitrators passed the first part of the award on 28.10.1990. The record further reveals that Respondent No. 1 defaulted in attending the meeting prior to the final award, i.e., on 28.4.1991, One paternal house is situated in the village Khanda Deula consisting of six rooms with mud walls & tiled roof. There is also another room adjacent to the said house having only three side mud walls & G.I.C. sheet roof. The parties have another house at Barjpada town over Ac.0.11 decimals of homestead consisting of five rooms with mud walls & tiled roof & the same was allotted to the present appellants. Adjacent thereto, there is a small dilapidated house over Ac 0.01 decimal of land adjacent & it was allotted to Respondent No. 1. The house situated at Khanda Deula was given to the appellants & only the outside one roomadjacent to the said house was allotted to Respondent No. 1. Though Respondent No. 1 filed his written objection vide Ext.2 on 27.4.1991 before the Arbitrators to consider the inequitable distribution of the properties, the Arbitrators did not consider the said objection. Respondent No. 1 purchased the Bhogabati land during the lifetime of his father. Though Respondent No. 1 filed his written objection vide Ext.2 on 27.4.1991 before the Arbitrators to consider the inequitable distribution of the properties, the Arbitrators did not consider the said objection. Respondent No. 1 purchased the Bhogabati land during the lifetime of his father. Appellant No. 2 who was examined as O.P.W.1 in the Court below admitted that on 28.4.1991 there were some corrections in the last page & "Bhogabati land" was added after the last word "Iti" in the award & the award was made final at the instance of the Arbitrators. The signatures of the brothers were taken in the said award. He also admitted that his self-acquired properties at Cuttack had not been included in the said award & his sister was also given a share in the award. Though it is the case of the parties that their sister relinquished her share in the paternal properties & nothing has been added, there were inequitable distributions of the properties. Therefore, the parties again called for a Panchayati on 17.5.1992 for further resolving the dispute in respect of Ac. 0.11 decimals of homestead land which was given to Respondent No. 1 & the amount of Rs. 60,000 which he was to give to the appellants in lieu thereof. But the Panchayati did not allow the same application as the award was made final on 28.4.1991 & filed before the Court u/s 14(2) of the Act to make it a rule of the Court. 6. So far as the question of limitation was concerned, the Court below after taking into consideration the decisions of this Court & the Apex Court reported in Gangaram Chhapolia Vs. Chief Engineer (Projects) and Others, & M/s. Chahal Engineering and Construction Co. Vs. Irrigation Department, Punjab, Sirsa held that it has the jurisdiction to extend the time to consider the objection filed u/s 33 of the Act. There is no doubt that an application u/s 33 of the Act contemplates an application for three purposes, namely, (i) when it is desired to challenge the existence of an arbitration agreement, (ii) when it is desired to challenge its validity, & (iii) when it is desired to have its effect determined. There is no doubt that an application u/s 33 of the Act contemplates an application for three purposes, namely, (i) when it is desired to challenge the existence of an arbitration agreement, (ii) when it is desired to challenge its validity, & (iii) when it is desired to have its effect determined. An arbitration agreement may come into existence in one of two ways; it may either arise out of an agreement which contains nothing else besides the arbitration agreement, or it may arise out of a term contained in a contract which deals with, various other matters relating to the contract. Where one is dealing with an arbitration agreement of the second kind, Section 33 is concerned only with the term relating to arbitration in the contract & not with the other terms of the contract. 7. In the present case, admittedly the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Arbitrators. Therefore, points (i) & (ii), as stated above, were not raised by the parties. However, the parties questioned the effect of determination made by the Arbitrators. The Learned Civil Judge after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, while setting aside the award, rightly came to the conclusion that there were inequitable distribution of the properties & the Arbitrators did not consider the materials available on record. 8. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order & the award. The Misc. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed