JUDGMENT : 1. The instant applicant has been filed by the applicants/respondents in the main arbitration application, seeking rectification of the final order dated 20th of April, 2017, passed by this Court in the arbitration application, whereby Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah, retired Chief Engineer, R&B Department, Kashmir, being common choice between the parties, has been appointed as the Arbitrator for resolving the disputes, with a further prayer to appoint any other independent authority as an Arbitrator between the parties. 2. In terms of final order dated 20th of April, 2017, passed in Arbitration Application No.16/2014, this Court, while observing that the dispute(s) exist(s) between the parties, laid down as under:- “Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah, retired Chief Engineer (R&B), being common choice between the parties, therefore, is appointed as Arbitrator for resolving the above referred disputes. The Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference and proceed with the arbitral proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and conciliation Act and to publish the award whatever permissible.” 3. Thereafter, the applicants herein/respondents in the arbitration application have filed the instant application seeking withdrawal of the Arbitrator so appointed earlier in point of time by this Court, namely, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah, Retired Chief Engineer, R&B, Kashmir, with a further request for appointment of any other independent authority as the Arbitrator between the parties to settle the existing dispute(s), on the ground that the name submitted by the Contractor/applicant in the arbitration application and non-applicant herein, is Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah, Retired Chief Engineer, R&B Department, Kashmir, whereas the name submitted by the employer/respondents in the arbitration application and applicants herein, was Mr. Nazir Ahmad, Retired Chief Engineer, R&B, Kashmir. It has been alleged that since the said Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah is associated with the Contractor/applicant in the arbitration application and non-applicant herein, as such, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah, is neither a common choice between the parties nor is he acceptable to the applicants herein/respondents in the arbitration application. In terms of order passed by this Court on 6th of September, 2017, the appointment of the earlier Arbitrator has been stayed. 4. The non-applicant/applicant in the arbitration application have filed their objections in opposition to the instant application, wherein the averments made in the application have been vehemently denied. In terms of order passed by this Court on 6th of September, 2017, the appointment of the earlier Arbitrator has been stayed. 4. The non-applicant/applicant in the arbitration application have filed their objections in opposition to the instant application, wherein the averments made in the application have been vehemently denied. It has been stated that the Arbitrator so appointed by this Court is in no way related or associated with the non-applicant/applicant in the arbitration application and this Court, on the basis of the consensus arrived at between the parties, has rightly appointed the said authority as an Arbitrator between the parties to settle the existing dispute(s). 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 6. From the perusal of the available record, what comes to the fore is that the parties had submitted their respective panels of Arbitrators before this Court. The panel submitted by the non-applicant/applicant in the arbitration application composed of the following Officers:- I. Mr. Z. L. Zutshi, Retired Chief Engineer, R&B, Kashmir; II. Mr. Mohammad Afzal Shah, Retired Chief Engineer, R&B, Kashmir; and III. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah, Retired Chief Engineer, R&B, Kashmir. Likewise, the applicants herein/non-applicants in the arbitration application submitted the following panel: I. Hon’ble Mr Justice (Retired) Muzaffar Hussain Attar; II. Mr. Nazir Ahmad, Retired Chief Engineer; and III. Sh. A. M. Lanker, Retired Chief Engineer. 7. By order dated 20th of April, 2017, this Court, while noticing that the name of Mr Nazir Ahmad Shah, Retired Chief Engineer, R&B, Kashmir, is the common choice between the parties, appointed the said authority as the Arbitrator for resolving the disputes existing between the parties. However, the applicants herein/respondents in the arbitration application have filed this application claiming therein that the Arbitrator so appointed by this Court is not the common choice between the parties and is not acceptable to them as, in fact, in the panel submitted by the applicants herein/respondents in the arbitration application, the name submitted by them at S. No.2, i.e. Mr. Nazir Ahmad, Retired Chief Engineer, is not the same authority as submitted by the non-applicants/applicants in the arbitration application and that they are two different personalities. It has been alleged by the applicants herein/respondents in the arbitration application that the Arbitrator so appointed, namely, Mr. Nazir Ahmad, Retired Chief Engineer, is not the same authority as submitted by the non-applicants/applicants in the arbitration application and that they are two different personalities. It has been alleged by the applicants herein/respondents in the arbitration application that the Arbitrator so appointed, namely, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah, Retired Chief Engineer, R&B, Kashmir, is associated with the non-applicant herein/applicant in the arbitration application and, as such, he can neither be a common choice between the parties nor is he acceptable to them. On the other hand, the non-applicant herein/applicant in the arbitration application, while defending the appointment of the Arbitrator so appointed by the Court, have disputed the averments made by the applicants/respondents in the arbitration application in the instant application. 8. Apparently, disputed questions of facts have been raised herein this application and this Court cannot go into a fact finding mission so as to ascertain the genuineness of the rival contentions. However, since, there is, admittedly, a dispute existing between the parties, for the purpose of which they are mutually satisfied that there is need for the appointment of an Arbitrator to settle such disputes. Therefore, in order to set the controversy to rest and in the interests of justice, I deem it appropriate to appoint an independent and impartial Arbitrator in the matter between the parties to settle the existing disputes between the parties. 9. In the above background, while allowing the instant application and rectifying the earlier order of this Court dated 20th of April, 2017, Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, District & Sessions Judge of the Subordinate judiciary of the State, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute(s), which has/have arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement in question. The Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference and, after giving an opportunity to the parties to file their claims/counterclaims, adjudicate thereon and make his award in accordance with the Act coupled with the rules made thereunder. The Arbitrator would be at liberty to settle the terms for deciding the dispute(s), such as fees, expenses, etc., to be shared equally by the parties in dispute. 10. Registry to send copies of this order to the learned Arbitrator so appointed as also to the parties in dispute for information. 11. Parties to appear before the learned Arbitrator on the appointed date to be fixed by the learned Arbitrator himself. 12. 10. Registry to send copies of this order to the learned Arbitrator so appointed as also to the parties in dispute for information. 11. Parties to appear before the learned Arbitrator on the appointed date to be fixed by the learned Arbitrator himself. 12. MP No.02/2017 disposed of as above.