JUDGEMENT 1. This case has been filed by Sri Bal Manohar Jalan for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause in the Development Agreement dated 26.7.2001 (Annexure-1) between him as the developer and opposite parties as the owners of the property in question. It is not in dispute that the said agreement was signed by the petitioner as well as all the opposite parties in which there was clause 29 with respect to Arbitration. 2. However, both the aforesaid parties were aggrieved and levelled charges against the other alleging violation of the terms of the agreement requiring arbitration. In the said circumstances, the owner, namely, Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh (opposite party no. 1) filed Request Case No. 74 of 2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties and in that case affidavit was sworn on her behalf by her daughter Urwashi Kumari (opposite party no. 3). In the said case Sri Bal Manohar Jalan (petitioner) who was the sole opposite party therein appeared through his learned counsel. 3. On the other hand, the instant Request Case No. 10 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner Sri Bal Manohar Jalan for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties as per Arbitration Clause in the aforesaid agreement. In the said case affidavit was sworn by the petitioner himself. In the said case there were three opposite parties but only opposite party no. 1 Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh appeared through her learned counsel. 4. Both the aforesaid cases were taken up together by this court on 13.7.2009 as they had been filed by one or the other party to the Development Agreement dated 26.7.2001 as per its Arbitration Clause No. 29, impleading the other party to the agreement as opposite party in the respective case. However, after arguments the aforesaid Sri Bal Manohar Jalan and Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh agreed for appointment of one Arbitrator for redressal of their respective grievances raised in both the Request Cases as they had arisen out of the same agreement. Learned counsel for both the parties after consulting their respective clients arrived at a consensus that Justice Shashank Kumar Singh, a retired Judge of this court, be appointed as an Arbitrator in terms of the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). Learned counsel for both the parties after consulting their respective clients arrived at a consensus that Justice Shashank Kumar Singh, a retired Judge of this court, be appointed as an Arbitrator in terms of the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). Accordingly, vide common order dated 13.7.2009 this court disposed of both the aforesaid request cases appointing the said Arbitrator directing him to proceed and dispose of the claim of the parties in terms of the provision of the Act. 5. Subsequently, opposite party nos. 2 and 3, namely, Karan Singh and Urwashi Kumari filed MJC No. 3441 of 2009 for amendment/modification/clarification of order dated 13.7.2009 with respect to Request Case No. 10 of 2008 claiming that although they were opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the said case, neither any notice was sent to them nor they were heard by this court before passing the aforesaid order dated 13.7.2009. Although learned counsel for Sri Bal Manohar Jalan vehemently opposed the contention of the aforesaid objectors, this court vide order dated 24.2.2010 allowed the MJC case and recalled its order dated 13.7.2009 so far it concerned Request Case No. 10 of 2008 and directed the aforesaid opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to immediately appear and file their reply in Request Case No. 10 of 2008. 6. Thereafter the said opposite party nos. 2 and 3 appeared and filed their reply/objection on 5.3.2010 claiming that the said Request Case was not maintainable against them as they were neither parties to the agreement nor any notice as required under law was ever served on them. It was also alleged that they were also the heirs of the original owner of the property in question, namely, late Captain Ran Vijay Singh alongwith opposite party no. 1 but in the Development Agreement they were not parties and the said agreement was illegal and void due to coercion and fraud played by their fathers brother Maharaja Kamal Singh of Dumraon. It was also claimed that the agreement in question having expired much earlier, it has ceased to exist and hence no arbitration can be legally done on the basis of Arbitration Clause No. 29 of the said agreement. The petitioner filed a counter reply to the said objection. It was also claimed that the agreement in question having expired much earlier, it has ceased to exist and hence no arbitration can be legally done on the basis of Arbitration Clause No. 29 of the said agreement. The petitioner filed a counter reply to the said objection. The petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit dated 10.3.2010 to which also a reply was filed by the abovenamed opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 7. It is quite apparent that opposite By nos. 2 and 3 being son and daughter of opposite party no. 1 they were necessary parties for deciding the Request Case in which they were impleaded as opposite parties by the petitioner, hence after recall of earlier order dated 13.7.2009 with respect to the instant Request Case No. 10 of 2008 they were given full opportunity to file their pleadings and produce documents and also to place their case. 8. From the arguments raised by the parties as well as materials on record, it is quite apparent that Development Agreement dated 26.7.2001 (Annexure-1) was between the petitioner Sri Bal Manohar Jalan as developer of the second part and opposite party no. 1 Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh as owner of the first part, which term was to include her heirs, executors, legal representatives, successor-in-interest and/or assign. Furthermore, in Clause 28 of the said agreement, it was specifically mentioned that owner (opposite party no. 1) conveyed to the developer (petitioner) that her son Karan Singh and daughter Urwashi Kumari (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) had no objection to the present agreement and will not dispute the same on any future day and in token of the acceptance of the said Development Agreement, Karan Singh and Urwashi Kumari (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) were signing (the Development Agreement) as confirming parties. Furthermore the aforesaid opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had duly signed on each and every page of the said Development Agreement as per the aforesaid clause 28 of the agreement. 9. Although about nine years have lapsed but the said agreement had never been challenged by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 or even by opposite party no. 1 before any court of law, although their signatures on the said document fully proved that they were having full knowledge and information about the said agreement. Furthermore the said opposite party no. Although about nine years have lapsed but the said agreement had never been challenged by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 or even by opposite party no. 1 before any court of law, although their signatures on the said document fully proved that they were having full knowledge and information about the said agreement. Furthermore the said opposite party no. 1 had throughout been claiming that it was the developer, namely, petitioner who was violating the term of the agreement, inasmuch as opposite party no. 1 had filed Request Case No. 74 of 2007 for appointment of Arbitrator for resolving their dispute in accordance with the Development Agreement and in that Request Case opposite party no. 3 Urwashi Kumari had sworn affidavit on behalf of her mother Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh whereas Vakalatnama of the said Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh was executed by her daughter Urvashi Kumari as Holder of her Power of Attorney dated 13.2.2007. 10. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh also tried to support the claim of her children but in the aforesaid facts and circumstances her objection was absolutely frivolous and misconceived as she herself on earlier occasion had agreed to the appointment of an Arbitrator in the instant case also and after consensus Arbitrator was appointed. In the said circumstances, at this stage she cannot be legally allowed to take a "U" turn and wriggle out of her own earlier stand. 11. So far the legality and validity of the Development Agreement and its Arbitration Clause is concerned, it cannot be legally presumed that the Development Agreement in question and its Arbitration Clause would be operative for the purposes of Request Case No. 74 of 2007 only because it was filed by Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh the mother of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the said Development Agreement and its Arbitration Clause will not be operative for the purposes of the instant Request Case No. 10 of 2008 merely because it was filed by the developer Sri Bal Manohar Jalan. 12. A plain reading of the Development Agreement dated 26.7.2001 (Annexure-1) clearly showed that it was executed by Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh (opposite party no. 1) as owner which term included her children (opposite party nos. 12. A plain reading of the Development Agreement dated 26.7.2001 (Annexure-1) clearly showed that it was executed by Smt. Indumati R.V. Singh (opposite party no. 1) as owner which term included her children (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) also after taking their consent and acceptance of the Development Agreement and accordingly both her children namely the aforesaid opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had signed the development agreement on every page thereof as confirming parties, which was apparent from Clause 28 of the said agreement. 13. The word "Confirm" as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary is to complete or establish that which was imperfect or uncertain; to ratify what has been done without authority or insufficiently; to give new assurance of truth or certainty and to give approval. Similarly Whartons Law Lexicon defines "Confirmation" as a species of conveyance by which a voidable stage is made valid and unavoidable. In this regard referencs may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Faujdar Kameshwar Dutt Singh V/s. Ghanshyamdas and Another reported 1987 (Supp.) Supreme Court Cases 689. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 cannot legally escape from the aforesaid Development Agreement after signing it as confirming parties and would be bound by the term of the said agreement alongwith their mother (opposite party no. 1). 14. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has also raised a point that even if there was a Development Agreement between the parties dated 26.7.2001, it was for a fixed period of two years after sanction of the plan and hence the plan having been sanctioned on 2.8.2003, the agreement ended on 2.8.2005 and even if grace period of one year is added thereto it has ended on 2.8.2006 and hence the said agreement has ceased to exist thereafter and on its basis the instant case filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The law is well settled in this regard that even if an agreement ceases to exist Arbitration Clause remains in force and any dispute pertaining to the agreement ought to be resolved according to the condition mentioned in the arbitration clause of the agreement. In the said circumstances, there is no occasion for this court to reject the request case on the ground that the Development Agreement has ceased to exist. In the said circumstances, there is no occasion for this court to reject the request case on the ground that the Development Agreement has ceased to exist. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in case of N. Srinivasa V/s. Kuttukaran Machine Tools Limited reported in (2009)5 Supreme Court Cases 182. 15. According to the settled principle of law with respect to "the Act" three points are to be considered for appointment of an Arbitrator namely: (i) whether there is an Arbitration Agreement; (ii) whether there is dispute between the parties to agreement; and (iii) whether the petitioner has given notice to the other side. In the aforementioned facts of this case, it is quite apparent that there is an Arbitration Agreement between the parties in the Development Agreement signed by all the parties and there is dispute between the parties with respect to the specific terms of the agreement due to which request cases have been filed by both the sides. So far the question of notice is concerned, it is quite apparent that notices dated 12.5.2007 (Annexure-2) were sent by the petitioner to all the three opposite parties whereas another notice dated 1.11.2007 (Annexure-3) was sent by the petitioner to opposite party no. 1, copies of which were also sent to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as is apparent from the aforesaid annexures themselves. Furthermore, the instant request case having been filed after more than three months of the aforesaid notices and all the opposite parties having appeared in the instant request case, it is quite apparent that the requirement of law with regard to notice has been duly fulfilled. Hence all the said hree points are present in this case. 16. It is also a settled principle that when a party fails to act as required under the arbitration clause of the agreement for appointment of an Arbitrator the other party may request the Chief Justice or any person or Institution designed by him to take necessary measure for securing appointment of Arbitrator giving due regard to qualification of the Arbitrator and other considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of independent and impartial Arbitrator. In this regard the provision of Section 11 of "the Act" may be referred to. 17. In this regard the provision of Section 11 of "the Act" may be referred to. 17. Considering the above discussed factual circumstances and legal position as well as the fact that the other Request Case No. 74 of 2007 filed by opposite party no. 1 against petitioner with respect to the same Arbitration Clause of the same Development Agreement had been disposed of by appointing Justice Shashank Kumar Singh, a retired Judge of this court, as an Arbitrator where after the said arbitration proceeding is continuing on at least twelve previous dates in which matter in issue is the same, this court also finds it necessary in the ends of justice that the same Arbitrator should also proceed in the instant matter. 18. Accordingly, the aforesaid Justice Shashank Kumar Singh a retired Judge of this Court is appointed as an Arbitrator in this case in terms of the provision of "the Act". Both the parties shall approach the said Arbitrator within two weeks alongwith a copy of this order so that the matter may be proceeded alongwith the other arbitration matter arising out of Request Case No. 74 of 2007 and both the matters be disposed of in terms of "the Act". However, the said Arbitrator will be at liberty to fix his remuneration and expenses for the Arbitration which shall be shared by both the parties equally. 19. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this Request Case is disposed of.