ORDER : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. These arbitration applications have been filed by the applicants under Section 15 read with Section 14 & 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) for appointment of Sole Arbitrator on account of the respondents failing in appointing the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause in the contract. 2. The relevant facts are that on the strength of the power of attorney executed by one Shri Govind Das Baheti, Shri Sushil Kumar Damani executed two agreement to sell dated 12.3.96; one in favour of the applicant-Suresh Chandra Tapariya and another in favour of the applicant-Smt. Krishna Devi Tapariya of the property originally owned by Smt. Muli Devi Baheti in respect whereof she had executed a Will and appointed Shri Govind Das, as executor. Pursuant to the agreement to sell executed as aforesaid, the sale deed could not be executed on account of deteriorating health of Shri Govind Das, who later expired on 30.10.96. A dispute having been arisen between the parties, the applicants resorted to arbitration clause (Clause no.8) provided in the ‘Agreement to Sell’ executed between the parties. Complying with the arbitration clause, the applicants served the non-applicants with the notice dated 6.9.99 whereby Shri Padam Singh Verma was appointed arbitrator on his behalf. Shri Padam Singh Verma entered into reference and the proceedings before Sole Arbitrator commenced after appearance of the counsel for the non-applicants. Unfortunately, Shri Padam Singh Verma expired on 20.10.01. The vacancy was later on filled up by appointment of Shri Pyare Mohan Begerhotta, Retired District Judge, before whom the arbitration proceedings further continued. However, Shri Begerhotta later on permanently shifted to United States of America and therefore, vide order sheet dated 8.9.13, resigned from the proceedings. In these circumstances, the applicants vide letter dated 24.5.13 appointed Mr. Justice Shri Karni Singh Rathore, former judge of Rajasthan High Court as arbitrator but the counsel for the non-applicants did not agree for the same and vide letter dated 22.6.13 suggested the name of Shri Manak Mohta, former judge of Rajasthan High Court as Sole Arbitrator, to which the applicants consented but no response was received from the non-applicants thereafter. Hence, these applications. 3. Hence, these applications. 3. The factual position regarding existence of the arbitration clause in the contract, the appointment of the arbitrator, the commencement of the arbitration proceedings and termination of mandate of the arbitrator on account of withdrawal of the arbitrator appointed from the office for the reasons assigned is not disputed by the non-applicants. However, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants contended that the agreement to sell containing arbitration clause was executed by Shri Sushil Kumar Damani on the strength of the power of attorney executed by Shri Govind Das in his favour, which as a matter of fact, already stood terminated on account of revocation of power of attorney by the executor Shri Govind Das on 18.12.95 and thus, the agreement to sell executed by the power of attorney holder in favour of the applicants herein in respect of the disputed property does not create any right in their favour and the arbitration clause contained therein cannot be enforced. 4. Indisputably, the arbitration clause in the agreement was acted upon by the parties and after appointment of the arbitrator, the arbitration proceeding had already commenced. The present application has been filed by the applicants for substitution of the arbitrator inasmuch as, the mandate of arbitrator stands terminated on account of his withdrawal from the office. The question sought to be raised by the non-applicants at this stage, which is essentially a question touching the merits of the case, cannot be gone into by this court in the present proceedings. In the considered opinion of this court, the question with regard to the enforce-ability of the agreement in question needs to be left to be decided by the arbitrator. 5. No other objection is raised by the counsel appearing for the non-applicants against the substitution of the arbitrator. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants has suggested the name of Mr. Girdhari Lal Acharya, Retired District Judge, resident of outside Public Park, Ratkhana Colony, Bikaner as Sole Arbitrator. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants have no objection if Mr. Girdhari Lal Acharya is appointed as Sole Arbitrator. 8. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. Mr. Girdhari Lal Acharya, Retired District Judge, resident of outside Public Park, Ratkhana Colony, Bikaner, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute that has arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement to sell in question. Girdhari Lal Acharya is appointed as Sole Arbitrator. 8. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. Mr. Girdhari Lal Acharya, Retired District Judge, resident of outside Public Park, Ratkhana Colony, Bikaner, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute that has arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement to sell in question. The fee and expenses payable to the Arbitrator shall be determined as per clause 34 of the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009 as amended vide Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment), 2016. The parties are directed to appear before the Sole Arbitrator on 15.5.17.