ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondent in the light of the pleadings on record. 3. The contract between the parties in the favour of a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 07.05.2017 is not disputed. The availability of an arbitration agreement between the parties is evidenced by Clause 30 of that contract. 4. The plea of the respondent and the arguments advanced on its behalf is that time is of the essence of the contract between the parties and by efflux of time, the contract has become frustrated and that, therefore, no question further survives for determination through arbitration. 5. The arbitration agreement between the parties contains all the requisite elements of an arbitration agreement as defined in the Act. It is not vitiated on any count referrable to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The contract is neither pleaded nor seen to be one that is void. The materials on record clearly disclose the existence of disputes between the parties. The plea of the respondent is one of frustration of contract on ground of efflux of time on the premise that time is of the essence of the contract. The question whether a particular contract has frustrated resulting in the discharge of the contractual obligations by any other parties thereto, is itself an issue, would amount to a dispute for resolution through arbitration. That could be decided by the Arbitrator because the alleged frustration of contract does not diffuse the arbitration agreement. That being so, the question of arbitrability of disputes which are raised by the applicant is itself arbitrable. Arbitration agreement would stand by itself and would be available to be involved for resolution of disputes, including any plea as to discharge of contract. The arbitration agreement is one that survives for the purpose of arbitration notwithstanding the respondents plea that the contract has itself come to an end by frustration. 6. The fact of the matter remains that the applicant had invoked Section 9 of the Act and an application for a measure under that provision is pending before the jurisdictional Court. The arbitration agreement is one that survives for the purpose of arbitration notwithstanding the respondents plea that the contract has itself come to an end by frustration. 6. The fact of the matter remains that the applicant had invoked Section 9 of the Act and an application for a measure under that provision is pending before the jurisdictional Court. It is also on record through pleadings that a civil suit was filed by the applicant and it was contested by the respondent making reference to the existence of the arbitration Clause. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, it is held that due measure under Section 11 (6) of the Act is to be taken by appointing an Arbitrator. 8. In the result, this Application is allowed appointing Arbitrator. 9. Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao, Former High Court Judge, is appointed as the Arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the applicants and the respondent and the said arbitrator shall enter on reference and proceed with, as enjoined by the Act. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the Arbitration Application, shall stand closed.