JUDGMENT By Court.- This application has been filed under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner's contention is that a partnership deed was executed between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 7th June, 1992. Thereafter, a new partnership deed was executed on 28th March, 2001 and the petitioner retired on 1.4.2001. Thereafter because of the dispute, the petitioner filed a suit before the civil court being Title Suit No. 44 of 2004 in the year 2004. In the said suit, the respondents raised objection under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 stating therein that in view of the arbitration clause, the suit cannot be maintained by the plaintiff. The objection of the respondents was accepted by the Civil Court vide order dated 5th December, 2006 and parties were directed to approach the Arbitrator. 2. According to the petitioner, he gave a notice to the respondents on 18th March, 2008 for proposed Arbitrator but the respondents did not responded to the said notice and, therefore, the petitioner has filed this Arbitration Application in this Court on 1st February, 2010. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that there is a clause of arbitration in the partnership deed dated 7th June, 1992 and the petitioner filed the suit within the period of limitation, where the respondents' objection was accepted by the civil court, and in view thereof the parties should have obtain a decision from the Arbitrator. Following the direction of the civil court, he served the notice upon the respondents and admittedly the respondents did not agree to the name suggested by the applicant, therefore, now the Court may appoint an Arbitrator under sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly the petitioner filed the suit before the civil court wherein trial court accepted the objection of the respondents and dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 5th December, 2006 whereas this application for appointment of Arbitrator has been filed in this Court on 1st February, 2010. Firstly, the claim of the petitioner is barred by time as he approached this Court on 1st February, 2010. Firstly, the claim of the petitioner is barred by time as he approached this Court on 1st February, 2010. Even, if any benefit can be given to the petitioner under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, then also he has not moved any application under Section 14 of the said Act. Even if any benefit under Section 14 of the said Act can be given to the petitioner, then also that can be given for the time consumed in prosecuting the proceeding in the civil court and the petitioner filed the suit just before the expiry of the period of limitation and his suit was dismissed on 5th December, 2006 and thereafter he had filed an application before this Court for appointment of Arbitrator in the year 2010. Therefore, even if that period is credited, even then his application is barred by time. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the notice alleged to have been given by the petitioner was never received by the respondents. It is also submitted that the suit was filed by the petitioner alone but notice was given on behalf of ten persons, which was absolutely illegal and invalid notice and, therefore, from the facts pleaded by the petitioner himself, it is clear that there was no valid notice for appointment of Arbitrator given by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the notice was given on behalf of ten persons then one of the person is the applicant petitioner, seeking the appointment of Arbitrator. However, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the persons named in notice (Annexure-4) from serial nos. 2 to 10 were not the partners in the firm for which a partnership deed was executed on 7th June, 1992 and also on 28th March, 2001. 6. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that a partnership deed was executed between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 7th June, 1992. Then a new partnership deed was executed on 28th March, 2001 and the petitioner retired on 1.4.2001. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 44 of 2004 wherein application of the respondents was allowed vide order dated 5th December, 2006. 1 and 2 on 7th June, 1992. Then a new partnership deed was executed on 28th March, 2001 and the petitioner retired on 1.4.2001. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 44 of 2004 wherein application of the respondents was allowed vide order dated 5th December, 2006. The petitioner, in proof of service of notice upon the respondents,• has placed on record only the receipt given by some private courier, indicating that some matter must have been dispatched by the petitioner to the respondents, but so far as receipt is concerned, acknowledgment is concerned, that is not there in the record. It is also clear from the notice (Annexure-4) that notice was given by ten persons and admittedly the suit was filed by the petitioner only and not by remaining nine persons. Thus, the notice given by remaining nine persons, cannot be treated to be a notice under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrator, as it could not have been acted upon and accepted by the respondents and the petitioner has approached this Court two years thereafter i.e. after alleged date of notice. 7. In view of the above reasons, the petitioner failed to explain the period of limitation in a case where he was referred to an Arbitrator vide order dated 5th December, 2006 and have approached this Court on 1st February, 2010 after delay of about three and half years. 8. In view of the above reasons, the application is held to be barred by limitation and consequently it is dismissed.