JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. This petition has been filed u/s 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short, the Act) for appointment of Arbitrator in agreement No. 4 of 1996-97. It has been stated that petitioner and respondent had entered into an agreement for referring their dispute relating to work of Social Housing Colony at Shogi, Shimla i.e. 20 Nos. HIG-1 houses, 12 Nos. HIG II houses, 13 Nos. MIG I houses, 10 Nos. MIG II houses, 112 Nos. HIG I flats and 24 Nos. MIG-I flats including internal and external services (SH: C/o 8 Nos. HIG II flats including internal water supply and sanitary installation and development of site) for a sum of Rs. 36,40,668.45 vide award letter dated 24.05.1997 to the sole arbitration of a person to be appointed by Chief Executive Officer of HIMUDA. It has been stated that the work awarded to the claimant was delayed and finally completed on 31.12.2001. The delay in execution of the work was attributable to the respondent, but still the respondent imposed penalty of Rs. 3,64,066/- on the petitioner for delay in completion of work. The penalty was later on reduced. The penalty was paid by the petitioner. It has been stated that on 12.04.2001 the petitioner submitted a bill alongwith details of charges to the respondent. The full and final payment of entire work was computed to be Rs. 3,98,706/-. After raising the bill on 12.4.2001, the petitioner submitted further reminder letters for the payment on 14,3.2003 and 26.12.2003, but till date the respondent has not settled the claim of the petitioner and no amount has been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has raised the claim of following amounts from the respondent:-- (a) Full and Final payment for the entire work = Rs. 3,98,706/- (b) Recovery of Steel = Rs. 1,80,000/- (c) Extra and substituted items = Rs. 2,00,000/- (d) Interest @ of 18% p.a. on the outstanding dues and (e) Cost of arbitration. 2. It has been submitted that clause 25 of the agreement provides appointment of Arbitrator. The petitioner issued notice to respondent On 12.9.2011 for appointment of Arbitrator, but despite that the respondent has not appointed the Arbitrator, hence petition. 3. The respondent has contested the petition by filing reply. It has been stated that petition is time barred. The final bill was submitted by the petitioner on 14.3.2003 amounting to Rs. The petitioner issued notice to respondent On 12.9.2011 for appointment of Arbitrator, but despite that the respondent has not appointed the Arbitrator, hence petition. 3. The respondent has contested the petition by filing reply. It has been stated that petition is time barred. The final bill was submitted by the petitioner on 14.3.2003 amounting to Rs. 3,98,706/-, which was submitted without any detail of measurement. The said bill was turned down by the respondent on 24.4.2004 with an objection that it does not contain the measurement of the work done and the petitioner was directed to contact Assistant Engineer alongwith measurement. The petitioner thereafter did not submit the final measurement and did not even contact the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer for final measurement. The respondent has contested the claim of the petitioner and denied the claim. The rejoinder has been filed. The petitioner has reiterated the stand and denied the case put forward by the respondent. It has been stated that final bill was prepared by the petitioner on 12.4.2001 instead of 14.3.2003. The respondent had unilaterally turned down the bill submitted by the petitioner. 4. Heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in response to letter dated 24.2.2004 of the respondent the petitioner had written letter dated 11.3.2004. The petitioner visited the site with necessary documents, but officials of respondent did not turn up alongwith the record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority, (1988) 2 SCC 338 and has submitted that petition is within limitation inasmuch as till date the respondent has not prepared the final bill. 5. In Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is true that on completion of the work a right to get payment would normally arise but where the final bills as in that case had not been prepared, and when the assertion of the claim was made on 28.2.1983 and there was non-payment, the cause of action arose from that date, that is to say 28.2.1983. 6. In the present case, the work was completed according to petitioner before the submission of final bill by the petitioner. According to petitioner, final bill was submitted by the petitioner on 12.4.2001, according to respondent the petitioner submitted final bill on 14.3.2003, which was turned down on 24.2.2004. 6. In the present case, the work was completed according to petitioner before the submission of final bill by the petitioner. According to petitioner, final bill was submitted by the petitioner on 12.4.2001, according to respondent the petitioner submitted final bill on 14.3.2003, which was turned down on 24.2.2004. In other words, the petitioner made assertion of his claim on 12.4.2001 and even if it is assumed that assertion of the petitioner by way of final bill was turned down by the respondent on 24.2.2004 as claimed by the respondent, then the cause of action arose to the petitioner on 12.4.2001 or at the most on 24.2.2004. The present petition has been filed on 1.11.2011. There is nothing on record to show that after 12.4.2001 or 24.2.2004 the respondent acknowledged the claim of the petitioner for appointment of arbitrator. The routine letters written by the petitioner will not extend the limitation, which started on 12.4.2001/ 24.2.2004. There is no explanation why the petitioner remained silent till 1.11.2011 when the present petition was filed. It has not been denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that limitation for filing petition, u/s 11 of the Act is three years. As held above, the limitation started on 12.4.2001 or 24.2.2004, the petition has been filed on 1.11.2011. Therefore, petition is barred by limitation, hence the same is dismissed.