ORDER : 1. Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. D. Kireet, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. K. Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this arbitration application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the A&C Act’), the applicants seek appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of Clause 11 of the agreement of sale dated 27.08.2018. 3. Facts leading to filing of this application briefly stated are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 along with wife of respondent No. 3 (since deceased), styled themselves to be the owners and in possession of land measuring Ac. 97.35 guntas in survey Nos. 1270, 1271, 1272, 1274, 1276, 1281 and 1282 of Nandigama Village, Ranga Reddy District. The parties entered into an agreement of sale on 27.08.2018 for sale of agricultural land measuring Acs. 90.00 guntas, out of aforesaid Acs. 97.35 guntas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) at the rate of Rs.17,26,000/- per acre for a total consideration of Rs.15,54,00,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount of sale consideration, a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was paid in cash and a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- was paid through RTGS. On the same day, a Memorandum of Understanding in continuation of aforesaid agreement of sale was also executed between the parties, wherein one Mr. A. Venugopal Reddy was also made a party. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as wife of respondent No. 3 (since deceased) issued a notice on 04.01.2019, by which applicants were informed that they have failed to pay the continuous three instalment amounts and as per terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the same automatically stands cancelled. Thereafter, by another notice dated 16.01.2019, the applicants were informed that the agreement of sale dated 27.08.2018 has been cancelled and advance amount paid by the applicants has been forfeited and they are liable to pay damages. The applicants did not file any response to the aforesaid notice. 5. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No. 3’s wife (since deceased) jointly filed O.S. No. 52 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Mahaboobnagar against one Venkatrao Memorial Trust and its Trustees seeking declaration of title in respect of subject land. The applicants did not file any response to the aforesaid notice. 5. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No. 3’s wife (since deceased) jointly filed O.S. No. 52 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Mahaboobnagar against one Venkatrao Memorial Trust and its Trustees seeking declaration of title in respect of subject land. However, in contravention of the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale and the MoU dated 27.08.2018, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to settle the claim in respect of land measuring Acs.12.00 acres. 6. The respondent No. 3 filed an Arbitration Application namely A.A. No. 35 of 2023 seeking appointment of an arbitrator under clause 12 of the agreement dated 06.05.2022. The applicants are not parties to the aforesaid agreement and were not impleaded as parties in the said proceedings. This Court by an order dated 18.08.2023 appointed Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao, former Judge of this Court as sole arbitrator. 7. Respondent No. 3 and his wife filed an application, namely A.A. No. 163 of 2021 under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the present applicants seeking appointment of an arbitrator under the agreement of sale dated 27.08.2018. The aforesaid application was allowed by a bench of this Court by an order dated 06.03.2023, by which Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao, a former Judge of this Court was appointed as sole arbitrator. 8. Thereafter, the applicants sent a notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act on 15.11.2023 and have filed the present arbitration application on 08.01.2024. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submitted that notice dated 16.01.2019 was jointly issued by all the parties and the dispute under the agreement dated 27.08.2018 is alive and is pending adjudication before the sole arbitrator appointed in pursuance of order dated 06.03.2023 passed in arbitration application No. 163 of 2021. It was further submitted that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the agreement relates to immovable property. It is also urged that the issue is not ex facie barred by limitation. Therefore, the dispute be referred to sole arbitrator for adjudication. It is further submitted that dispute relating to specific performance of contract can be referred to arbitration. It is also urged that the issue is not ex facie barred by limitation. Therefore, the dispute be referred to sole arbitrator for adjudication. It is further submitted that dispute relating to specific performance of contract can be referred to arbitration. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited vs. Regency Mahavir Properties, (2021) 4 SCC 786 . 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that on 04.01.2019 as well as 16.01.2019 notices were issued, by which clause 5 of the arbitration agreement dated 27.08.2018 was invoked and the applicants were informed that the agreement of sale dated 27.08.2018 has been cancelled. It is pointed out that after a period of four years, notice dated 15.11.2023 has been sent invoking the arbitration clause and therefore, the claim of the applicants ex facie is barred and in the absence of any arbitration clause, the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in B and T AG vs. Ministry of Defence, (2024) 5 SCC 358 and NBCC (India) Limited vs. Zillion Infra Projects Private Limited, 2024 (3) ALD 36 (SC). 11. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the record. 12. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant clauses of the agreement of sale dated 27.08.2018. Clause 5 provides that if the parties violate the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement of sale, the agreement of sale stands cancelled, whereas clause 11 deals with the arbitration clause. Clauses 5 and 11 read as under: “5. The sale consideration for the schedule property shall not be negotiated further in any manner at any point of time, till the mentioned payment of instalments. If the vendees and vendors violates the terms and conditions of this agreement of sale shall be deemed to be cancelled and time is essence of the contract. 11. It is mutually agreed by both the parties of the document if any problem persists both the party has to prefer arbitration for the settlement of issues by mutual consent.” 13. If the vendees and vendors violates the terms and conditions of this agreement of sale shall be deemed to be cancelled and time is essence of the contract. 11. It is mutually agreed by both the parties of the document if any problem persists both the party has to prefer arbitration for the settlement of issues by mutual consent.” 13. The Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Nortel Networks India Private Limited, (2021) 5 SCC 738 while dealing with the issue of claim being barred by limitation and therefore not arbitrable, has held as under: “Issue of limitation 38. Limitation is normally a mixed question of fact and law, and would lie within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal. There is, however, a distinction between jurisdictional and admissibility issues. An issue of “jurisdiction” pertains to the power and authority of the arbitrators to hear and decide a case. Jurisdictional issues include objections to the competence of the arbitrator or tribunal to hear a dispute, such as lack of consent, or a dispute falling outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. Issues with respect to the existence, scope and validity of the arbitration agreement are invariably regarded as jurisdictional issues, since these issues pertain to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. 39. Admissibility issues however relate to procedural requirements, such as a breach of pre-arbitration requirements, for instance, a mandatory requirement for mediation before the commencement of arbitration, or a challenge to a claim or a part of the claim being either time-barred, or prohibited, until some precondition has been fulfilled. Admissibility relates to the nature of the claim or the circumstances connected therewith. An admissibility issue is not a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the claim. 40. The issue of limitation, in essence, goes to the maintainability or admissibility of the claim, which is to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. For instance, a challenge that a claim is time-barred, or prohibited until some precondition is fulfilled, is a challenge to the admissibility of that claim, and not a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the claim itself. 44. The issue of limitation which concerns the “admissibility” of the claim, must be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal either as a preliminary issue, or at the final stage after evidence is led by the parties. 47. 44. The issue of limitation which concerns the “admissibility” of the claim, must be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal either as a preliminary issue, or at the final stage after evidence is led by the parties. 47. It is only in the very limited category of cases, where there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is ex facie time-barred, or that the dispute is non-arbitrable, that the court may decline to make the reference. However, if there is even the slightest doubt, the rule is to refer the disputes to arbitration, otherwise it would encroach upon what is essentially a matter to be determined by the tribunal.” Thus, this Court in the very limited category of cases, where the claim appears to be ex facie time barred, can refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration. 14. The Supreme Court in B and T AG (supra) inter alia has held that a stipulated period of three years as prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 commences from the period when the right to sue accrues. In Paras 65 and 66, it has been held as under: “65. Cause of action becomes important for the purposes of calculating the limitation period for bringing an action. It is imperative that a party realises when a cause of action arises. If a party simply delays sending a notice seeking reference under the 1996 Act because they are unclear of when the cause of action arose, the claim can become time-barred even before the party realises the same. 66. Russell on Arbitration by Anthony Walton (19th Edn.) at pp. 4-5 states that the period of limitation for commencing an arbitration runs from the date on which the “cause of arbitration” accrued, that is to say, from the date when the claimant first acquired either a right of action or a right to require that an arbitration take place upon the dispute concerned. 4-5 states that the period of limitation for commencing an arbitration runs from the date on which the “cause of arbitration” accrued, that is to say, from the date when the claimant first acquired either a right of action or a right to require that an arbitration take place upon the dispute concerned. The period of limitation for the commencement of an arbitration runs from the date on which, had there been no arbitration clause, the cause of action would have accrued: “Just as in the case of actions the claim is not to be brought after the expiration of a specified number of years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, so in the case of arbitrations, the claim is not to be put forward after the expiration of the specified number of years from the date when the claim accrued.” Even if the arbitration clause contains a provision that no cause of action shall accrue in respect of any matter agreed to be referred to until an award is made, time still runs from the normal date when the cause of action would have accrued if there had been no arbitration clause.” 15. In the instant case, admittedly the respondents have sent notices to the applicants on 04.01.2019 and 16.01.2019 informing them that the contract has been rescinded. Admittedly, the aforesaid notices were served on the applicants. Thus, the dispute between the parties arose and cause of action had accrued to the applicants on receipt of the said notices in the year 2019. Thus, the period of limitation for commencement of arbitration runs from the date of receipt of notice. However, the applicants did not take any action to initiate the arbitration proceedings within a period of three years and waited till October, 2023 and sent a notice only on 15.11.2023 seeking referral of the dispute to arbitration. The claim made by the applicants in the notice, therefore, on admitted facts, is ex facie barred by limitation. 16. In view of the preceding analysis, the arbitration application fails and is therefore dismissed. 17. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.