1. The contractor has filed the instant petition under Section 11 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 with a prayer for appointment of an arbitrator to settle the dispute which has risen between the parties. 2. There is no dispute that an agreement for construction of Spiritual Growth Center at Katra was executed between the parties on 7th day of July 2004 (Annexure-R). Admittedly, there is Clause 8 of the agreement which clearly provides for arbitration of disputes emerging from the agreement. The aforesaid clause reads as under: "8. All disputes and differences between the parties hereto pertaining to this agreement and other things that are subject matter/part of this agreement and all matters connected therewith shall be referred to the arbitration of a person to be nominated/appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties." 3. There was a receipt executed on 27.07.2009 by contractor with the statement to the effect that an amount of Rs. 9,71,115/- has been received in full and final settlement of dues after due discussion with the Chief Executive Officer and as per the report submitted by the Committee constituted by the Board. The sheet anchor of the arguments advanced by the counsel for respondents is that once the receipt has been executed on 27.07.2009 accepting the amount as full and final payment of all dues of the contractor then no dispute would survive. However, the petitioner has raised various issues and had requested for disbursement of further amount of Rs. 24,24,261/-. 4. Mr. Abrol, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that objection raised by the respondent with regard to execution of receipt acknowledging full and final payment of the dues would not be such a material factor for the Court to make reference. According to learned counsel, the receipt was executed under coercion and restraint because the contractor was in need of capital and it would not result in wiping out the surviving claims depicted in various paras of the petition. According to learned counsel, the receipt was executed under coercion and restraint because the contractor was in need of capital and it would not result in wiping out the surviving claims depicted in various paras of the petition. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case titled as National Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Boghara Plolyfab Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 170 and has argued that such an issue with regard to financial constraint would either be decided by Chief Justice himself or it could be left for the arbitrator. Similar view has been taken in Union of India and others v. Master Construction Company (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 349. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that there is no hindrance in appointment of an arbitrator by the Court because the issue of executing the receipt dated 27.07.2009 under financial constraint could also be decided by the arbitrator as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments. 6. Accordingly, Sh. Dev Raj Sharma, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) R/o 4/9 Extension Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, is appointed as an arbitrator who shall enter upon reference and decide the same in accordance with law including the question concerning execution of receipt under financial constraint of the contractor. 7. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send an intimation under registered/speed post to the arbitrator along with a copy of the paper book. 8. I wish to make it clear that the arbitrator shall proceed with the reference without being influenced by any observation made in this Court. 9. Disposed of accordingly.